No need to. You seem to be such a font of knowledge, at least according to you. Yet, you have not commented on the definition used by Monash University which I referenced in post 51 to you. You have admitted entirely the fact that humans are intimately involved in the workings of whatever you call genetic algorithms. Yet you somehow equate that with something that is prohibited from involvement with anything intelligent.
Just because I do not agree with what you assert does not make me unwilling or unable to learn. You had better understand that other people understand and have intimate knowledge of what your genetic algorithms run on.
Now answer my questions if you like. I have asked you a few. First about the image representing the "solutions" produced by the German tower building "genetic algorithm" which is in my post 23.
Why should I even try, since you immediately couch everything as “intelligent design thus not support of evolution!”? You don’t even understand that intelligent design is NOT at odds with evolution, so you’re simply out in left field...
I’m done with the GA argument with you; you don’t understand them (by your own admission), you refuse to consider them outside your faith beliefs (worse than the endless C++/Java debates), and you refuse to address the proven historical inaccuracies in the Bible.
Have a wonderful day, I’m off to enjoy some sun!