Refuting evolutionism- "Waiting for Two Mutations"

In an attempt to refute Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution", a peer-reviewed paper refutes the premise of accumulating genetic accidents- that is if said accidents need to be in specific places to make some difference in an evolutionary sense.

The paper is titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt.

I say it refutes evolutionism- the premise that the diversity of living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie the current theory of evolution.

That is because news genes require a binding site within its regulatory sequence. Not only that it needs to have a promoter, repressor and if more than one copy is required, an enhancer is also needed.

Now if you have read the paper you would have read how difficult it is just to get ONE specified mutation.

With a new gene there are quite a few specified mutations which have to take place just to get that new gene transcribed.

There just isn't enough time in this universe to evolve the capacity to use a new gene- that is in the given evolutionary scenario.

And even then there isn't any guarantee that the new gene will stay intact enough to be of any use once all the regulatory sequences are in place.

So why do I reject the theory of evolution? Science has all but demonstrated it is a hopeless concept and needs to be thoroughly revised.