No "WE" didn't. The claim was made that numerous patents for evolved inventions were granted. I pointed out that in the article one of the participants claimed that "If (as we expect) the patent is granted, we believe that it will be the first one granted for an invention created by genetic programming.". Clearly, that prohibits even one patent existing for a invention created by genetic programming.
Are you not aware that pending patent applications cannot be searched, only granted patents?
Gee, didn't you get the impression that I am capable of looking for things and can read and do read instructions?
This home page "http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html" has a boxed area containing a green area and a yellow area. The green area has this title ---> Issued Patents (full-text since 1976, full-page images since 1790)
And the yellow area has this title ---> Patent Applications (published since 15 March 2001)
I guess that means that patent applications can be searched.
Is this part of the argument really important to you? What will become of your argument if, in a dozen years, there are many such patents? Are you staking your position on the bet that this won't happen?
If so can we come back at a later time and and ask you to retract your arguments? And if you aren't willing to stake your position on the lack of patents, why are you making such a big deal out of the fact that no one at FR can point to the patent?