> > So? Nothing says that every possible permutation has to be 
> created. The
> > number of different possible combinations of arrangements of
> > streets/houses/factories/etc. for a city of a given size is pretty
> > impressive, but we find that cities fall into a relatively 
> small number
> > of basic arrangements. Why? Because those arrangements 
> *aren't* random;
> > they're extensions/outgrowths of a previous pattern, which 
> was, in turn,
> > based on an earlier, simpler pattern, etc. Sort of an 
> evolutionary "if
> > it ain't broke, don't fix it." Or, in this context, "if it 
> worked fairly
> > well, there's no need to explore completely unrelated 
> patterns in the
> > hope of finding something better--build on what you've got 
> working now."
> 
> Ah, but then you run up against the "Irreducible complexity" that Wirt
> mentioned--the situation where [it] *is* "broke" until you put 
> together the entire molecule.

And thus...? IOW, the "but then you" implies that this observation
rebuts some other claim, but I don't see what.