I think the experiment also suggests a response to the irreducible complexity argument.
In these simulated organisms, non functioning (by some standard) "genes" continue to propagate with the organism even though they don't serve a purpose (or even hinder the organism to some degree). Then at some point a random mutation adds the last piece of the puzzle and the collection of genes now collectively serves to help the organism.
Implicit in the irreducible complexity argument is that these nonfunctional genes prevent the organism from surviving all together so that later generations cannot build on them. But that of course is not true. Our DNA is full of genetic garbage. Well, it may be garbage now, but maybe a mutation in the future will make those genes useful to us.
Even genes that tend to harmful to our progress may stick around long enough to become useful later.
There are plenty of genetic diseases that sustain themselves through families for example. It's possible that one day favorable mutations will turn these genes into something favorable later on.
Consider the mouse trap example. It's claimed that the mouse trap is irreducibly complex. It may be. That's fine. It doesn't hurt the argument for evolution.
The answer is that organisms already contain the equivalent of incomplete mouse traps in their DNA. Right now these incomplete devices are waiting for the last mutation to make them complete.
That's absurd, and I'm enlightened.
Is the logic in the mouse trap story an example of how well the ID'rs can think? I've never given much attention to the irreducibly complex concept, except to read the piece about the human eye, and when I found their logic so catastrophicaly immature, or just plain dumb, I quit trying to fathom their thoughts.