(Claim that a shopping list analogy is that it doesn't address the issue of reproduction, assuming that's where the errors have to be inserted.)
That's also wrong. For example,"identical twins" aren't completely identical. Mutations in the fertilized egg still happen, after reproduction, and they can make important changes.
(claim that favorable changes aren't "structural")
I'd say a new digestive organ would be "structural." And we've seen that evolve in a population of lizards left in a new environment. Surely larger and stronger muscles are structural,and we have seen that appear in humans due to mutations involving the myostatin gene.
(claim that they are only in "tacked-on side processes)
I never thought of digestion as a "tacked-on side process." For most animals, eating is not an optional feature.
(complaint that genetic algorithms have code that doesn't change)
Which would be like saying, "sure, evolution works, but what if God hadn't created the universe to be constant and unchanging in its basic laws?"
(insists that the code, which is like nature's physical constants, has to change)
What would happen if physical constants changed randomly? Would evolution still work then?
"If the laws of nature kept changing, then you wouldn't have evolution." Not a very good argument, is it?
Genetic algorithms copy nature, which is why the rules have to remain constant and not change randomly.
It would be possible to write a genetic algorithm in LISP, and let the program itself mutate into different versions, keeping only the survivors that produced output.
Which would then be simulating cosmology. How well, I can't say. My thought is that God did it the way He wanted, the first time. But then, I'm not a YE creationist.