Someone who had studied evolution wouldn't label it "random".
Yes, random mutations with survival pressures.
Translation: Non Random.
When there is no survival value to any sub-mutation, the “selection” process does NOTHING to cause this sub-mutation to pass on.
That's right. But when there *is* a survival value the selection process does contribute to passing on the mutation because the critter survies to reproduce, and thus information is accumulated.
But when there *is* a survival value the selection process does contribute to passing on the mutation because the critter survies to reproduce, and thus information is accumulated.
No. I cannot be "accumulated" if there is no survival value of the sub RANDOM mutations. Yes, the mutations ARE random (again, knock off the pedantry - all discussions of natural selection speak of random mutations coupled to natural selection), and theoretically, those that provide some sort of advantage will be passed on.
However, a NON-WORKING PARTIAL FLAGELLUM will not be passed on, because it offers NO advantage, and is probably a disadvantage. On the other side, a fully working flagellum does provide advantage, but is not possible in its entirety through slight mutations. "Slight mutations" is the exact wording of Darwin.
Again, Darwin himself stated that if any structure was not possible through slight, random mutations that offer incremental survival value, then his theory would be disproved.
Mathematically untenable, with a probability of something like 1 in 10^400 or so. ('impossible' to the 20th power)