…cases where there is absolutely no survival advantage unless a bunch of elements arise at the same time

The generic answer given by evolutionary theory is that there are no such cases in nature. Where there are groups of improvements where none of them would be of any use unless the others also happened, these always evolved from previous small changes which were of use without the others happening as well.

The most often-cited alleged example of adaptations that could not possibly come about in that way (called "irreducible complexity" by creationists) are those of the eye. But this has been debunked so often and so thoroughly by evolutionists that, perhaps, it is not cited so often nowadays. Well, there's the case of the bombardier beetle, which is debunked here.

As a non-specialist, I'd say that the state of the argument as a whole is one of blind hope and unsubstantiated claims by people who don't know what they're talking about, versus thorough – if at times rather patronising – debunkings by people who do. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of "irreducible complexity" in biological adaptations.