So you think… but it’s not clear how mutations translate into phenotypic change.
If need triggers a more efficient search, then organisms will have a better chance of getting what they need.
End of the day, scientists are still unravelling the complexities of genotypes, phenotypes, the various ways the cell “writes” into the genome etc.
A conclusion of “randomness” could be based on ignorance.
That screeching sound you hear is the goalposts being drug across the field.
Doesn’t change the fact that the search is random.
Not at all… the goal is not just a particular mutation. It’s a phenotype that gives gain of function.
Some types of mutations might bring about bigger changes in phenotype than others.
And phenotypes exist on the organisms level.
No “search” can be random… faster/more efficient searches can find a solution where other searches cannot… the impact is consistent, not random.
This is why the immune system is successful.
That is even further off topic.
Before you were questioning if mutations even changed phenotypes.
That’s a bold claim with zero evidence to back it.
If mutations are not a random search, then why do these mutation processes also produce neutral and detrimental effects? Why do only a tiny, tiny percentage of organisms get the needed mutation in a given environment?
It isn’t clear what you think the word random means in the way you are using it here.
What would “random” antibody mutations look like?
I was referring to the word “search”… the word indicate a desire to find…
So it’s impossible to have “random search”.
But it’s not impossible to kick against the goads. 
http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/stochastic/random_search.html
did he give any calculation for his scenario? i dont think so.
What is a “calculation for this scenario” and why isn’t that part of what you first asked for, which was:
a step by step explanation (at the genetic level) for how the flagellum for instance evolved?
Now you’re making new shit up because, as I already stated, what you first asked for clearly isn’t want you want.
Unless we don’t take the word to indicate a “desire to find”. Which we can do, because we don’t like to get hung up on particular words, what matters are concepts.
a simple calculation to show how many muations we need to evolve the flagellum.
Let’s say it’s 5000. Now what?
You can have a desire to find something and search for it randomly. I can randomly pick lottery numbers while having a desire to win.
They already showed how many mutations were needed for the antifreeze gene, and the ID community rejected it.
Did they all take place simultaneously?
Yes… these are searches. Buy biological systems are not supposed to “desire” anything.
Humans are biological systems, and we desire things. The point I am making is that the processes that produce mutations are blind to what will help or hurt the organism.
And the processes that produce our desires likewise appear to be blind.
now you have a good explanation to how a complex system can evolve stepwise.
there is a different between a simple trait and a complex one. and the flagellum is a complex one. im not sure that the same is true for the antifreeze protein.