(1) The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be a harmful, useless mutation and would be selected out long before it ever had a chance to develop more complexity.
Why would it be harmful? I assume you are not talking about a mutation that would result in a change in a complex system that would already exist...like a slightly longer neck on a tortoise. Do you have a hypothetical example that you could provide?
(2) Math. (see below)
If it takes 1,000,000 harmful mutations to form a part of what will become a complex subsystem later (and for some strange reason it is not selected out), we now have a situation where there is a much stricter requirement about what type of mutation will be "beneficial".
This statement is predicated upon the assumption that harmful mutations are required to provide the small changes that result in a big change which is beneficial. However, a mutation is classified as "harmful" if it hinders the ability of the organism to produce offspring. Most mutations are actually neutral, not harmful. So, if that small change does not affect the ability of the organism to produce the same average number of offspring in its lifetime as the others in its population then there is no harmful mutation.
Because the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes (or "designs") that would constitute a "beneficial" mutation to itself. For this reason, we can no longer say that it will only take 1,000,000 (a very conservative number of begin with) mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation. Now that we have the first "part" of the coming complex subsystem, it may take 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 mutations to come up with the second "part" of the machine.
Could you explain how you came up with the idea that the first "part" of the "developing" complex machine has a much smaller range of attributes?
Why do you consider 1,000,000 mutations to come up with a beneficial mutation "very conservative"? Do you have some statistics from geneticists to substantiate this claim?
Perhaps this isn't the math that you asked me to comment on, because it is not very well laid out for a math proof.
