to follow up on gus_massa's point, it's not the "math" of an evolutionary thoery/agorithm that's being "proved" here; it's the assertion that it "proves" someth

to follow up on gus_massa's point, it's not the "math" of an evolutionary thoery/agorithm that's being "proved" here; it's the assertion that it "proves" something about the environment it's trying to model and saying you've "proved" something about natural events is probably bad practice