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.
Is there something about the word "is" that you don't understand? I even put asterisks around it so it would stick out.
When there are survival values, information is therefore accumulated.
I believe I said in the previous post that you were correct in cases with no survival values. You are merely restating what I've already acknowledged.
Yes, the mutations ARE random
Yes. Again your are correct. But again you ignore that evolution doesn't end at that point, which is where natural selection begins and randomness ends.
However, a NON-WORKING PARTIAL FLAGELLUM will not be passed on
Again, you are correct. But Behe's argument only holds if the structure is required as a flagellum. There have already been several other useful features discovered for sub-structures of the flagellum. This is as evolution theory would predict, and as predicted those intermediate structures have been found. The irreducible complexity hypothesis has been defeated.