Not just the writer of the article, but you yourself say it. The comparison is inevitable. In fact from your discussion with tribune7 you are speaking in programming terms. Have you ever heard of a new system inserted in the midst of a program at random? Have you ever heard of a new decision making branch created at random? Of course not.
You see, you describe in post 38 pretty well what has to happen , however you do not see that such could not happen randomly or without specific direction. You cannot just insert what is essentially new code in the middle of a program at random.
The procedural programming analogy only goes a little ways. The genetic/biological system is more like an event-driven object oriented system. You can plunk down whole libraries of new object classes into a program with no effect at all.
Plus, the way an object method gets invoked is completely different. In a computer program, you have to get the name of the method (or its starting address if we're talking machine code) exactly correct or else the compiler/runtime gives you an error & the whole thing stops. It's all or nothing with traditional programming languages.
If I were to simulate a genetic system, it'd be more like: the probability that an object's method gets invoked is proportional to how correctly it was spelled in the statement that called it. That's just for starters. A totally different programming paradigm.
I've never tried to write a GA program or even seen a genetic programming language, so for all I know they already have languages like that. If they do exist, I'm sure you could duplicate objects & methods and mutate them & have them sometimes end up doing something useful.