That's not how evolution works. You've omitted natural selection. Quoting from "The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism" by Jason Rosenhouse at https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/05/the-failures-of-mathem...

> However, this argument is premised on the notion that genes and proteins evolve through a process analogous to tossing a coin multiple times. This is untrue because there is nothing analogous to natural selection when you are tossing coins. Natural selection is a non-random process, and this fundamentally affects the probability of evolving a particular gene.

> ... Modern proponents of intelligent design (ID) are usually too sophisticated to make such an error. Instead, they present a superficially more sophisticated probability-based argument. Their idea is best illustrated by example. ... ID proponents argue that it is the combination of improbability and matching a pattern that makes them suspect that something other than chance or purely natural processes are at work. They use the phrase “complex, specified information” to capture this idea. In this context, “complex” just means “improbable,” and “specified” means “matches a pattern.” ...

> The argument likewise founders on the question of complexity. According to ID proponents, establishing complexity requires carrying out a probability calculation, but we have no means for carrying out such a computation in this context. The evolutionary process is affected by so many variables that there is no hope of quantifying them for the purposes of evaluating such a probability.

Back in the 1990s, the newsgroup talk.origins put together a long index of creationist claims. Your example is http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

> The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.

> The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

> The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

> The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

It links to further discussion at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html ("Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations")

Richard Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" "is about probability and how it applies to the theory of evolution. It is designed to debunk claims by creationists about the probability of naturalistic mechanisms like natural selection." (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable ).

Five copies of the book are available to borrow right now for free (with an account) from archive.org, at https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22Climbing+Mount+Impro... .

All of these explain why your probability calculation is not meaningful.