These are junk odds, designed to assess the probability that a modern protein would form by random chance on the assumption that the only possible kind of life is the kind we observe. This is not how biochemistry works, and we know that self-replicators and protein-builders don't have to be especially complex. What you've given here are the odds of something that nobody thinks happened. The actual obstacles to a working theory of abiogenesis are perfectly manageable, and do not involve anything with a problematically low probability needing to happen.
Now, I'm sure it's true that the odds of exactly what happened happening exactly as it did are mind-bogglingly low. You can make the same observation with respect to the order of every deck of cards you've ever shuffled. But there is no insurmountable probability obstacle to a working theory of abiogenesis when you stop placing arbitrary constraints on it.
> fine tuning necessary for the universe to support life anywhere
I don't think you ever addressed my response to this notion: We have no reason to think that life was the objective of whatever fine-tuning we observe. Life seems special to us because we are life, so we place a disproportionate emphasis on it. Nothing about the conditions of the early universe suggests that they were as they were in order for life to exist.
> evolutionists continually attribute purpose to the process
This is pretty extreme equivocation. Yes, you can get order from disorder. You can get sustainable advancement through natural selection. None of your bullet points are actual examples of nature or natural processes having purpose or personality.
To hit just one of them, it's perfectly expected that increasing entropy will result in increasing complexity along the up-slope of the bell curve. Think about dropping cream into coffee. Your initial arrangement, where the coffee and cream were separate, was very orderly but not very complex. Your ending arrangement, a uniform distribution, is very disorderly and not very complex. The mid-point, where you have swirling tendrils of cream throughout the coffee as they mix together and make different shades of caramel in different places, is somewhat orderly and very complex. This is how the relationship between entropy and complexity works. Wait a googol years or so, and we'll have a uniform distribution. But for now, we live on the up-slope of the bell curve where heightened emergent complexity is completely expected.
The beauty of natural selection is that while the mutations are random, the selective process is not.