What observed phenomenon can natural selection not explain? Because your posts show that you really just don't understand what evolution is...you seem to understand how creationists misconstrue it, but can't actually identify it's actual causes.
The argument from probability is old and tired, and also debunked. Natural selection isn't blind probability, but selection...and built up from the smallest order into infinitely gradual complexity. It keeps the good and eliminates the bad...the process supports itself. So the extravagant probabilities and Hoyle-esque arguments of claiming that hundreds of things would need to come together all at once are patently false. Only 1 tiny thing would need to happen. Then one more tiny thing, and so on for hundreds of millions of years....except as the "one more things" keep happening, the number of places for a new "one more thing" increase exponentially. So once you have, say, a bond between 2 proteins....it becomes not only possible but likely that some form of life will occur.
So lulz at the "FACT" as you called it. I've seen similar analyses from various times and the number grows with each decade to try to make it seem even more outrageous. All it does is show an inability to comprehend how natural selection actually works.
I could counter irreducable complexity with ID's inability to account for suboptimal design in nearly any organism. So I will. But now I'll also clarify that most cases of irreducable complexity are just ID'ists not looking long enough or thinking hard enough. You stop when it seems like a problem and declare God the winner. That's not how science works.
Famous "problems" like the eyeball have since been researched and reconciled with scientific data (turns out, part of an eyeball, even tiny amounts, is useful). Also generally ignored is the co-evolution of both species and specific gene clusters in organisms, which is likely how most of the "problems" came to be. Imagine lions who hunt gazelles...the fast lions get food, thus surviving, but the fastest gazelles survive and thus procreate, so only the even faster lions survive and become more numerous, then the fastest among that breed and so forth. Increments. Now imagine a complex joint where all of maybe 6 hinges are needed to move in a specific way. A crude example, but it will suffice. The first hinge is bred accidentally and no positive or negative benefit. Then a second is mutated, and it allows incredibly basic movement which may o may not have benefit. Remember, neutral mutations will continue to survive so any of it would need to be a negative in order to ensure extinction of that mutations. After a few million years the creature might have basic movement, which aids in food gathering (or any mundane survival task). Co-evolving in increments. Then one can easily imagine a species-level co-evolution like the lion/gazelle scenario to push such a joint to even greater fruition over millions of years.
So please, try reading something that isn't tinged with religious bias, because it's clear you're only familiar with one side of the argument.
....
Also, same question as for ushome...you said ID "supplements" evolution. How? What evidence is there to support ID? What do you have that is support for your own theory, not something against evolution? I have yet to see it except for "look! It looks designed!" Well, it doesn't to me. It looks evolved over hundreds of millions of years. And you'll need a better argument than that if you expect to convince anyone who isn't blinded by religion.