Either survival-enhancing mutations are the result of random processes or there is some (self?) organizing principle at work. (And I accept that biochemical reactions can, in some cases be self-ordering.)
However, the example used (the flagellum) is not merely an assembly of components, but an assembly of sub-assemblies.
Simply adding one more component to a successful sub-assembly (with, as postulated, a totally different function) is hardly likely to constitute a more-survivable assembly.
Unless each of the subassemblies constitutes a survival-enhancing trait in and of itself, the likelihood of arriving at the final assembly is remote. And, even then, there must be a demonstrated path via which the subassemblies could merge into a higher-complexity (more survivable) assembly with a distinctly different function.
Simply showing that removal of a sub-assembly can leave a survivable construct does not, to me, show a path to higher-level assemblies. In order to have "natural selection" at work, the higher level assemblies must be shown to be possible -- and the intervening component-at-a-time sub-assemblies-in-development must be shown to be survivable in and of themselves.
Let's just say that I don't find that component of Miller's argument to be convincing...
Let's just say that I don't find that component of Miller's argument to be convincing...
Let's just say you weren't able to follow the argument and his explanation went right over your head.
It doesn't have to be likely. It just has to have a non-negligible probability. If you have two sub-assemblies that provide a selectable advantage, it's not a big leap to have them put together. All you need is a recombination of genes, which happen all the time, and then natural selection does the rest