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.
No, it has not. "Their" (those who try to find usable substructures) research is "irreducibly" begging the question, it is based on a basic logic flaw. The "sub structures" that he showed were either non-functional for ANYTHING, or were too complex in and of themselves to be the product of a single group of mutations. Their research was based on their assumption of the conclusion that irreducible complexity CAN'T hold, because of the implications. Besides, on the DNA side, the key component is INFORMATION, lots of it, and this information IS irreducibly complex when put in the context of "it has to provide a survival advantage in order to be passed on".