Design evidence # 111: The heart

And that is because the maintenance of computer code is closer to evolution than it is to a straightforward design-and-build methodology.In both cases incremental changes are added to the original structures, which were never designed to accomodate them.

What I am talking about is less than ideal, but a practical necessity.
It is not possible to completely rewrite every program in a suite for every release - not if you want to release on a reasonable schedule. Nor is it practical to forsee every change or addition that might be required at the initial design stage. Then there is the issue of assigning work. So programs acquire functions piecemeal, added by different people - sometimes involving quite radical changes. As this happens that program gets more and more complicated.(Sometimes - and this IS very bad - it gets to the point where parts of the code are "off limits" for any further change - even to fix bugs).

I am definitely agree that simplicity is a hallmark of good design.
I was adding the idea that continued iterative modification with no overall plan is a recipe for complexity.Unfortunately when you are on the treadmill of product development it is hard to find the time to stop for a complete redesign.

So essentially you are denying that we can recognise design in living beings. That is the consequence of your assertions. But if we cannot then your whole argument falls apart.And yes, interdependancies are EXACTLY the sort of complexity I was talking about. Good design avoids that sort of complexity, iterative modifications may be forced into adding them.