The actual numbers depend on the event and permutations and probability distribution.  Fo numbers we need a specific situation.  Dice games work nicely to illustrate the process.  But, you may pick a specific case.

I did pick specific cases, as seen from quotes. Sickle call anemia and flagellum.

I'm not sure what you are asking for then.  You seem to be in agreement (without doing the math) that advent of the sickle trait is not very complex does not contain Specified Complexity and therefore chance events can account for it and that flagellum does exibit Specified Complexity.  Do you suggest that advent of the sickle gene by evolutionary process is an event that should be considered specified and complex?  Do you suggest that you know of specific evolutionary processes that could have built out flagellum from a bacteria gene pool that totally lacked flagellum?

Or are you simply asking that we go through the math for these examples?

OK, the advent of Sickle Cell trait in hemoglobin first. The Sickle Cell gene is one base pair different from the far more common typical human Hb gene at position 6 of the 146 amino acids.  At position six in sickle trait the gene codes for valine instead of glutamic acid. One chance hypothesis for this event is that Hb at some time in the past underwent a single chance substitution of a base pair in one or more persons.  We know from empirical analysis that this kind of substitution occurs about once for every 100,000,000 base pairs.  This gene contains 146*3 or 438 base pairs (not relevant for this analysis) and at that slot there were three errors possible. By this hypothesis, the combined odds of this mechanism is 1/300,000,000.  Next let's consider the number of replication resources available to derive this event.  For this we take the estimate that there have been about 120,000,000,000 human births (~4,000,000,000 5,000 years ago) and perhaps three times as many miscarriages. Thus without considering the specification resources we already have a 99.998% probability (better since I have approximated) that this event could have occurred by chance over 5,000 years ago. By this we conclude that this event was not complex and did occur by chance.

The filter considers a rejection region of similar events and then identifies all other regions in sample space with equal or less probability distribution that are of equal specificity.  In this way all the events in all these regions are considered.  Your claim is false.



We observe that there are different and redundant proteins but we have no information about how they came to exist.  You accept presupposition that evolutionary processes generated these proteins but it is not empirically validated and furthermore we have never identified any processes that can accomplish what you assume has happened.



This was discovered in the 1970's, and the processes are the same mutation process that have been known for some time.



You are splitting hairs.  Probability theory includes theorems that cover unknowns.  If one possible chance hypothesis is identified, all other must honor the number of permutations and degrees of freedom so far identified.



Actually, it fits very poorly.  Also it would tell us only that some organisms are similar to others.  It cannot and does not informs us at all how that came to be.  We are discussing here the how.



Thus far experiment has failed to confirm duplication and frame shift so even it remains speculation.  Perhaps you have new information on this?



Point mutations (including frame shift) and duplications are quit frequent, you are correct.  At the same time, they don't generate much new information and seem limited to monoprotein function such as enzymes too.  Given the starting point and mode, they are similar to the sickle cell trait complexity example above.
 


On the contrary, the fact that it accounts for the data very well is the power of it as a filter.  You turn a blind eye to those who have used the filter.

The problem is that creationists tend to misrepresent evolution as some giant implausible saltation event. It couldn't be farther from the truth. If it were the case, then yes, it would be unlikely and the complexity would argue against "evolution" of that form, but reality defeats that assumption.

Evolution is unguided, but non-random algorithm. It's a slow build-up from A to F, not a direct jump immediately. Given the times involved and the slow process of build-up wherein you can lock-in changes, it's very unlikely at all and complexity doesn't negate it.

But positing "design" as the necessity because it's complex is a non-answer anyway, since God is far more or at least equally as complex. It doesn't answer the problem to use the very trait your looking to answer to answer itself, especially when the "answer" is effectively an unknown variable.

Probability studies are ideal for situations where background information is sparse.  With background knowledge, we don't need probability to predict cause.

 
this is why it is important to identify the modes of causation.

1. Necessity -- driven by physical law
2. Unconstrained contingency - Pure Chance
3. Unintentional constrained contingency - for example mutation and natural selection
4. Intentional constrained contingency - design

Perhaps you can improve on this model by adding a fifth mode.  The SC filter eliminates option one through three. If there are no others then it has to be design.


Perhaps you should open your eyes first.  SC is an objective but otherwise unaltered application of the Fisherian probability model.  You will find that Fisher's probability mode is widely accepted.