That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught.
Ordinary old lottery fallacy. The chances of you winning the lottery are next to naught. The chances of somebody winning the lottery are pretty high. Similarly, the chances of evolution producing one pre-specified result are next to naught, but the chances of evolution producing something viable are nearly 1.
By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough.
The problem is that the 'result' that you claim evolution produces, is always 'pre-specified', because it is incredibly complex and cannot function without all it's part
Nope. You are confusing "specified complexity" (which in itself is meaningless) with "specified result". By "pre-specified" we mean the nature of the organism produced. Evolution has no goal. Evolution didn't "try" to evolve humans. It could have produced an essentially uncountable number of other organisms, some more complex than humans and some less complex. When calculating probability you must take all possibilities into account, not just the one possibility that happened.
If you flip a trillion fair coins, you will get some number of heads and some number of tails. The probability of getting those two numbers is essentially zero. And yet you got them. Because the probability of some pair of numbers is one.
(And next you have to account for the effect of selection).
Complexity is not a problem. "Irreducible complexity" is not a problem. Evolution can produce and has produced such things.
"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½) , or one chance out of 10 . The number 10 , if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" - Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Yep, standard creationist straw man. And the lottery fallacy again. Evolution does not require any number of successive successful mutations. Evolution has trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of attempts, almost all of which are deleterious or have no effect. Winning the lottery is almost impossible, but we won the evolutionary lottery once and that's enough.
For example, Behe calculated that it would take 20,000 years for a bacterial population to evolve a novel protein, starting with a population of one billion. He actually published that. Many people pointed out that his calculation was reasonable (but overly simplistic) except for the starting population. There are about 100,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria per tone of soil on the Earth. Re-run the calculation again and a novel protein is almost guaranteed to emerge in 20,000 years. See Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow
I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.
Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell.
Yeah, not to mention. Scientists who were unaware of the ToE or did not attempt to use Biblical-based creationism in their scientific work were not creationists in the modern sense.