Strongly disagree. I think you’re pitching iteration as “let’s change this a little bit to make it better”, with better being ambiguous, nebulous, and according to you unattainable through that method. Iteration is “let’s change something and retest”. The parameters you use determine the utility of the iteration. While it is true that you cannot meet every design challenge using iteration, you can do a lot of what you claim can’t be done. For example, delighting people? Why do you think that small changes cannot lead to end-user delight if end-user delight is one of the testing parameters in the iteration process? “Does this delight them? Yes/No. If no, make change X. Does this delight them? Yes/ No. If no, make change Y.” Etc, ad infinitum. Evolution is an iterative process. What I find amusing about your slamming of Darwinism is that all of the beautifully complex life around you comes from a single iterative process benchmarked against survival utility, which sometimes means benchmarking against aesthetics and sometimes means benchmarking against sheer physical utility.