Okay, I watched this with an open mind. I'm not an expert, but I have read some books, so I will try to present the academic side of it.

The difference lies in the nature of biological systems like cells and DNA compared to man-made ones like machins, equation & numbers. Unlike computer programs or machines, DNA defines structures, not specific instructions, leading to adaptability. 

Cellular machinery operates in a directed chaotic manner, with a small functional part amid randomness. The idea of an "optimal" sequence is context-dependent, influenced by the environment. 

For instance, sickle cell anemia's impact varies based on malaria prevalence, illustrating the complexity of biological systems.

Note: I am not arguing that it will not be possible in the future to define it properly in mathematics term s, but right now, I don't think it is possible, especially when it involves this level of randomness. 

Personally I understand that Darwin's theory is not 100% correct, and he overlooked some aspects, we know this for sure, I also believe there is more complexity to it. 
However, on a fundamental level, it appears to be a more logical model. While we have discovered other factors, they still seem to align with Darwin's framework. I haven't encountered a stronger case so far.