Now that you realized your "typographical
error," didn't go as planned, let's go over your dice analogy and explain why it's a false analogy fallacy.
Since we agreed that organisms evolve due to adaptation to environmental changes, it's possible for organisms to evolve into "less" complex form. So eventhough that's possible, evolution is still dependent on the environment. So if the conditions of the environment constantly require organisms to evolve into more complex forms, those that do evolve in that matter, survive, and those who do not, go extinct. So evolution is not random in comparison to you rolling a die. Your dice analogy doesn't include the variable of the environment effecting the dice.
That's why your argument that it's necessary for simple organisms to exist today, fails. And since premise 2 of the OP argument is contingent on the your argument here to be successful, evolution models, including yours, refutes the OP argument.
Don't be discouraged, this is part of what peer review is all about. You've successfully found an argument/idea/model etc, that was wrong. This helps us by not having to invest and waste our time and resources in the future if someone else brings it up.
