Hey, I pointed out three specific criticisms of the article, and no one countered those criticisms. If you wish to discount that, so be it.
And if you wish to argue over how a GA operates, then it is incumbent upon YOU to learn how they work first. I see no evidence that you really understand how they operate (much like the author of that article).
So if you don’t understand how they work, and don’t want to learn how they work, why should I try to force you to understand? Wasted effort...
All you said is that the authors don’t know what they are talking about, and yet you offered no evidence (that I know of) to demonstrate why. And in those few areas where you explained your understanding of GA’s, as opposed to explaining why the authors are supposedly wrong, you were describing human-level intelligent design, which, according to evolution, has nothing to do with Darwin’s materialist creation myth.
No you made a general statement about the author "that he is ignorant of how they work." You said it was obvious. Later you presented links as some sort of support for what you stated. I quoted the site to show that intelligence is required.
I'm not arguing about how genetic algorithms work. I'm arguing that a genetic algorithm is in the same class as the "To be or not to be" program I cited in post 65. The solution/search/state space is exactly the same for it as any other genetic algorithm for that particular problem. It just goes about finding the "fit" ones in an overtly obvious way.