The chance of evolution

In the SD
Peace and blessings,
I saw an interesting article that the Rabbi wrote on Ynet regarding evolution, "Was Einstein Wrong?" (link below), where you explain that even if we say that evolution occurred, the chances of it happening are still very, very low, and therefore there must necessarily be a Creator who led the evolutionary process in a planned manner (the explanation with the parable of the drunkard). Towards the end of the article you wrote:
"The question that this atheistic neo-Darwinist ignores is: What is the chance of such a thing happening? And the answer is: the chance is zero. How many drunks would have to leave the pub for there to be a reasonable chance that one of them would eventually reach their destination? Far more than the number of inhabitants of the universe."
And here almost all the talkbackers stood up (over 400 responses…) and asked a question that came to mind as well: Who told you that there really weren't such a large number of experiments? After all, according to their claim that the world has existed for billions of years (a claim that, by the way, doesn't necessarily contradict the Torah, as you know), during this time there have been billions upon billions of experiments, much, much more than the number of all the inhabitants of the universe.
If we assume that this is indeed what happened, then the chance is not so zero as you claimed in the article, and as is known in basic probability, as the number of trials increases, so does the chance of a certain event, and with an infinite number of trials it can already reach a high probability. Only if it turns out that not so many trials of evolutionary changes that develop the species are created in nature, then we can say that the probability will remain very low, and then your view is also understandable.
I do agree that there is a problem with this very assertion, because how can we say that so many experiments have indeed occurred (something that has no tangible, intuitive evidence in the last thousands of years to the best of my knowledge), is there real proof for this or is it just an ad hoc claim intended to justify this theory at all costs. (The more zero probability is claimed, the more scientists will be able to claim that experiments have occurred..)
Likewise, if we were to claim that there is no chance at all for inferior species to develop into advanced species of animals through evolution (i.e., there is no evolution in the macro), meaning that the chance is zero (round), and not zero (tending to zero), then even with an infinite number of attempts there is still no chance of this happening (zero remains zero), and your claim would be understandable.
But in light of the scientists' claim that there is zero such a chance, and on the other hand, there are endless such experiments, as long as we have not proven that their claim is only to justify the theory, then the evidence you allegedly claimed is invalid?
What you claimed regarding the laws that created this situation is also not sufficiently understood, because evolution does not deal with the question of who created the laws, just as it does not deal with the question of who created life (abiogenesis), but only with the question of whether the complexity we see in the world today could have been created blindly from a single living cell without intelligent design, and if we accept their claim (which is counterintuitive, requiring proof as stated) out of faith in science, what will we respond philosophically?
Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify the issue!
Link to the article in question:

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4086098,00.html