I hear what you are saying but the distinction between “some outcome” and “any outcome” is wrong. That would never fly in fault trees, failure mode analysis or quantum mechanics. The requirements for a change of state are described almost exclusively by probability functions in those fields. The change from one species to another is a change through several states. Since the change could have gone in several directions or no where, those possibilities each has a probability that can be calculated.
Both Huxley and Hoyle performed their calculations using a state (endpoint). I’m sure others have too and I haven’t seen any criticism by anyone on any evolutionist web site claiming faulty logic for doing that. They were criticized for their assumptions concerning randomness and the role of natural selection.
I just googled "huxley calculation probability evolution" and the first result is an anti-evolution blog complaining that "Evolution proponents like to say that creationists depend upon fallacies to discuss the statistical probabilities of evolution ever occurring....'It doesn't make any sense to calculate the odds of some particular replicator forming. We need to know the odds of any interesting replicator forming.'"
The seventh hit is a Google Books sample from Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas saying that
Huxley's calculation acutally gives the conditional probability that, if a given single-celled animal contains 1,000,000 mutations, it will itself turn into a horse. Neither Huxley nor any other evolutinist has ever claimed that a horse sprang fully developed from one single-celled animal. Thus...Huxley's huge number is as irrelevant as it is impressive.So as you see, it's not hard to find criticism of Huxley's faulty logic. I bet the same is true for Hoyle as well.