No, no, no.
If you think this is what evolution is stating then you have not understood the concepts you are arguing against.
Chance plays a part; within natural selection; The most advanced and best adapted individual could still fall prey to an accident or a predator and fail to reproduce.
However there is an analogy I’ve come up with for explaining the difference between the creationist mentality and reality.
Let’s say you have six dice and you roll them all, for this model we will say that you have to have all six as sixes to constitute a distinct change.
The creationist method involves rolling all six dice together and rerolling ALL the dice until you get six 6s.
The REALITY is that when you get a six, which counts as a mutation, you retain it. The chances are the mutation will do nothing.
So let’s say the first roll comes up with one 6, you keep that, now you roll 5 dice. 2 more sixes come up, now you roll 3, until you have all 6s.
The probability is FAR FAR higher of getting the full mutation than the creationist “random chance” method.
To dispute evolution is to fail to understand it. If you don’t understand it, instead of fighting against it, why don’t you try and UNDERSTAND. Compared to many of the scientific theories out there, evolution is SIMPLE to understand the basics of, and you’ll see it really is impossible to argue against, the same way gravity, fundamental laws of physics and chemistry are overall, if not in every single detail, irrefutable.