[AndrewC]

These are not references.

As I said, they were not references to the topic, however, they refer to something, therefore, they are references.

I already know the 9 transistor circuit design. It is not a 9 transistor circuit as designed. It was a 5 transistor, 4 diode circuit in the patent. I read the patent.

[Nataku X]

If you can tell me what you're trying to prove, I'd appreaciate it.

However, don't think you can say that the world of GAs is nothing because you can just wave a hand and say nothing useful has come out of random processes. You said that they had "nothing" and tried to C/P a "For Further Reading" list (for the laymen, even) to back up your assertions that they had "nothing".

You can track down the original authors, the original peer-reviewed articles, and so on to get the full story and to learn about GAs and about the 9-transistor circuit versus the patent you're talking about.

You did not bear good witness. You called their work nothing and cited deliberately misleading information in favor of your position. And then, using that list of references which you perfectly well knew was meant to be for further reading for interested laymen, not the original peer-review articles, you tried to smear some good computer scientists, and all evolutionists by extension.

I'm not going to play more of the "Since they won't show me their research, I'm going to sit here and call them frauds until they, or other Freepers, give me their research" game, you may have the final word in our debate.

Have a nice weekend; seeya.