It seems you don't know the difference between probability and necessity.
In the context of these evolution debates, when probability argument shows that the odds of a specific bio-structure forming by evolution are astronomically small, an average evolutionist will make this kind of argument:
"There are roughly 10^8 sperm in an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that makes the odds of "YOU" (the person that YOU are) 10^8 against (cos if a different sperm had fertilised the egg then "YOU" would not have been born, somebody else would have)."
But this argument has nothing to do with probability. This is called - necessity. For example, if you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. If two individuals produce offspring it is necessary to get offspring with some genetic characteristics.
Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that were selected before rolling. Probability of offspring with genetic characteristics xyz is the measure of the likeliness of producing offspring with genetic characteristics xyz that were prespecified before this offspring was born.
So this argument of yours is pure nonsense. It presupposes that probability is not problem for evolution because we have functional structures. This is like the situation in which one person would win the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row and then, after this person and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by saing: "Post-hoc probability arguments are meaningless."
No. I am not talking about necessity. ANY roll of the dice, or ANY individual produced, is a failure, unless it led to you. I'm talking about a die with at least 10^8 sides, thrown in a specific sequence over thousands of iterations.
The odds, 300,000 years ago, that the specific sequence that is you would occur, is ridiculous.
Every time a creationist responds to this type of claim, they say what you do, that SOMEBODY gets born, so the odds really aren't that bad. It's like saying, I need to roll a five to win the game. Then roll a four, and say, well SOME number had to come up, so I win. NO.
Sure, it's a necessity NOW. Because the odds that the offspring led to you improved with each successful "roll of the dice" until finally, every roll was a success, and the probability is one. That is why we can't use my aforementioned probability statistic to determine the truth of the observation that you are you. Likewise, you cannot use a manufactured probability alone to reject the data we observe that is consistent with evolution.
As for your multiple consecutive lottery wins...the guilt of the "winner" is not determined by odds alone, but an investigation into whether the event really occurred naturally. And thus far, the investigation into how we were created has failed to show any evidence that a magical being poofed us into existence, and mountains of evidence consistent with evolution.
And this is just one problem with your argument.
@sfs is trying to show you how even your calculation is flawed in the first place, because you simply don't know enough about how genetics works.