This is a comment on Lisle's article: "On the Origin of Articles" which is supposed to be a satire over evolution.
The 'Argument' goes like this - in Lisle's own words:'

1. Articles all have certain words/letters/sentences in common. This shows that they are descended from a common source.

2. Copying mistakes sometimes occur when articles are duplicated. (Do you deny this?)

3. Usually these mistakes make the article worse – less readable, etc. But these copies are less likely to be duplicated. No rational person would argue otherwise.

4. Though rare, a copying mistake could improve an article, (for example, by deleting a paragraph that was unnecessary or redundant). Better articles are more likely to be copied.

5. Therefore, articles will change over the course of time, gradually improving as they acquire beneficial copying mistakes.

6. We know that this happens: that articles and books diversify with time. (e.g. there are different versions of “the Hobbit”). So it is very reasonable to conclude that given enough time, one article can become a completely different kind of article, through such diversification.

7. Since articles can grow longer and diversify through purely natural processes, there is no reason to invoke some unseen author. This is simply Ockham’s Razor.

I'll comment this paragraph by paragraph.

1: In biology it is not the very identity of e.g. DNA in all organisms that show descent from a common ancestor, but the pattern of homology. Not just in DNA but also in morphology and Biochemistry.
Very few sentences are identical, or even close to, when you compare articles, even on the same subject. Even very diverse living organisms share a common set of genes that can be recognized as such by their homology.

2: Articles mostly are duplicated from the original, not from former copies. Living organisms are always duplicated from earlier 'copies'.

3: OK.

4: He can show no example of small changes making an article better. No spell-mistakes can make a copy better. Point mutations in a gene can make it more efficient. Especially if it is a new and not very efficient gene. Duplications and subsequent mutations can give a better survival of the carrier, especially if the gene in question is important in a number of different tissues or life-situations. This would add to the complexity. Duplicating a sentense or paragraph in an article will allways leave it less readable.

5: As his only example is reduction in complexity, he has no way of postulating how an articel could grow in complexity.

6: As shown above this is an completely unsupported conclusion.

7: He hasn't shown how an article can grow longer or more complex.

All in all the analogy fails on all important aspects of evolution and as such is simply one of the most stupid analogies of evolution you can think of. It clearly shows Lisle as a person who cares little about honesty.