Evolution doesn’t say the change happens in a single mutation so number 1 isn’t correct. Evolution says something that, on the surface sounds plausible, i.e. that a long series of small changes accumulate over time, until there’s something that’s not even recognizable as what it started out as. The scenario is totally implausible.
The tiny little changes don’t benefit the species in any way until way down the road, when it has fully developed some new ability it previously lacked, such as birds evolving from dinosaurs. So why would these useless changes take over an entire breeding population, until hundreds of thousands of years later when the species can finally do something new? And it’s not just one change, it’s a bunch of changes that all need to be in place for a large transition. It’s preposterous.
Numbers 2-4 are not necessary. A gene can be passed on to offspring if it’s not in both parents. If a blond and a brunette have a child, it will be one or the other.
Your comments change nothing. You are confusing macroevolution with microevolution.