Not true.
Oh, I get the claim, it's just that the conclusion drawn by the claim is false! We already know - from the hard, pure mathematical world of genetic algorithms and chaos theory - that we can start with an infinite problem-space and hundreds or thousands of failing solutions. And within a matter of a few dozen or hundred generations end up with solutions that START to work. And over a few hundred or thousand generations, with solutions that work really well!
If your algorithm was worth anything, it would be put to use solving a real problem using real chemistry.
How does the algorithm determine if a mutation is viable or not? Unless it is used in a real world context it is interesting but useless. It sounds like a complicated game of hotter/colder.
Then how did the designer come into being? Did the designer evolve? Was the designer created by a big-bang type event? Who designed the designer?
If your algorithm was worth anything, it would be put to use solving a real problem using real chemistry.
Heh, GAs are used extensively in chemical kinetics and identification of optimum molecular shapes.
How does the algorithm determine if a mutation is viable or not? Unless it is used in a real world context it is interesting but useless. It sounds like a complicated game of hotter/colder.
It uses a fitness function - a means of determining how well the solution fits the target goal. In biological terms, that would be how well the individual survives and thrives. In mathematical terms, it's an overall fitness score based upon what you want.
In one way, it is like doing "hot/cold", but in this case you take thousands of guesses at once, and you tend to head in the direction of guesses that lead to hot.