Should we have bunches of neutral body parts?

-------------Life is full of irreducibly complex systems. (If you take a part out of it, it will not work.) So how would one of these systems evolve? Below is an example of how it might happen, but if it did happen this way, everything should have a huge number of random, neutral body parts.- Evolving a mouse trap - (a very simple irreducibly complex system)
1. Mutation creates the platform (Neutral trait)
2. A few generations pass so that the gene has time to be passed to many of the species.
3. Another mutation takes place, that has the following traits.
- The trait is either helpful or neutral
- Can be passed on to the next generation
- Is one of the shapes needed to form the final trap. (Catch,
holding bar, hammer, or spring)
- Is located in the correct place in the body to be part of the
mousetrap.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 until all the parts are formed.If it did happen this way everything should have a huge number of random neutral body parts because of the third step.
It is more probable that the neutral, pass-on-able traits would neither be in the correct location, or shape.
The random traits that don't fit into the final product would always be produced faster than traits that do fit into the final product.-----------Is the scenario described above simply setting up a straw man? If so, why.
Is the reasoning behind expecting a huge number of random body parts a sound argument? If not, explain why.
Does life have a huge number of neutral, non-functional body parts?

1. Lets replace Catch,
holding bar, etc.. with Optic nerve, fovea, lense, etc...
2. We are not following behe's argument.
3. When I said "a mutation creates.." I did not mean to imply that it came out of no-where. Assuming it is from a modification of some other part would not change the fact that it would be a neutral part.
4. It sounds like your saying the idividual parts would not be neutral after all. The forvea, lense, etc.. would all be evolved for different systems in the same area, but then by chance be right next to each other , so that they end up fitting together as an eye? If this is not what you are saying please explain in greater detail, and if possible give me an example.

When I put #1, 2, 3, 4 in my last entry I was specifically responding to your comments, "Firstly.. secondly..thirdly.. fourthly..." From now on I will paste your words into my frame before responding to them. Let me try again.Paulk - "1)You really think that they eye evolved by parts just appearing ?"I think you should also start to copy and paste the sections you are respoding to, because I never said anything about "parts just appearing". I specifically said I DO NOT believe in parts "just appearing" . I said...
Gman - "When I said "a mutation creates.." I did not mean to imply that it came out of no-where."Paulk - "3) So the fact that the neutral trait is a modification to a functional (and therfore beneficial_ part suddenly makes the part non-functional ? No that would be a detrimental mutation."I never said they were non-functional, but I can see how you thought I did. When I said...
Gman - "It sounds like your saying the idividual parts would not be neutral after all." I ment to imply that they would be benificial rather than neutral, because you said they would have "evolved for other functions entirely."Paulk - "4) The eye isn't an IC system - the lens for instance is not necessary.Ok, I guess the ability to focus could be considered non-essential. But the retina, optic nerve, and neural pathways in the brain able to translate and interpret the message would be essential before the eye has any effect at all. So lest just work with these parts. An IC system now, right?Paulk - "But given an example of the sort I am suggesting "chance" is misleading - evolution makes use of what is available. Statistically the chance that SOME useful coincidences will turn up is almost a certainty.""From now on I will say "by trial and error" instead of "by chance".

I think this argument is sufficient. I'm dropping the "should we have lots of neutral traits?" questionBut...I still want to better clarify how apparently IC systems could develope.So, first of all, how does a single celled organism get use of a light sensitive spot?

So would it be correct to say that the retina would prabably evolve first and then the rest of the eye would, through mutational trial and error build upon that foundation (each step being helpfull) until it is an eye?Do you know of any resources that would go through the process of how a retina would evolve from the light-sensitive chemicals?