Initially, yes.
In a population of a million those having the mutation will be 1/1,000,000 of the population even in cases where the population increases.
No, look up "Genetic Drift".
Therefore the neutral mutation will not spread
Again, this is an invalid assumption. True, there's no guarantee it will spread, but it is as likely to spread as it is to die out.
Look up "Genetic Drift" -- there's a surprisingly good chance that a neutral mutation will spread to the entire population.
and there will be only a very small chance of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th mutation which will be helpful occurring.
You're making a fallacy there. Sure, there's a "very small" chance that a particular "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutation will pile onto a particular individual with a given mutation, but you're missing that other members of the large population will have their own unique mutations from the current or past generations. This makes for a large pool of mutations to be "worked with" as new mutations occur in the population.
Also, as the population interbreeds, the various mutations in the population get "mixed and matched" very rapidly, the "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutations don't have to occur in any direct descendant of the individual with the "1st" mutation. If they occur *anywhere* in the population they can get shuffled together at any subsequent generation.
Sexual reproduction is a very powerful process for the bringing together of multiple mutations which occurred very separately in space and time.
The likelihood is that the mutation will dissappear because of the fact that the overwhelming amount of mutations are detrimental.
Now you're changing the subject.
First you were talking about the fate of neutral mutations, suddenly you try to say that "the mutation" will "disappear" because it's likely detrimental. No, it isn't, you were specifically talking about the neutral ones.
No, look up "Genetic Drift".
Nope, in a situation where there is no selective advantage as here where there is a neutral mutation, the mutation does not spread. Genetic drift only changes allele frequency when new groups intermingle. Then in a sense a new larger group arises including the new members and this results in new allele frequencies of the new group. However in the case here of a single mutation occurring in one individual, it has no effect at all.
Look up "Genetic Drift" -- there's a surprisingly good chance that a neutral mutation will spread to the entire population.
Nope, the laws of Mendelian genetics are quite strict. The 50% chance of an allele reproducing is set in stone. Because all alleles have the same chance, the proportion of incidence of an allele in a population does not change when it does not have a selective advantage as is the case here.
In short, what I am telling you very simply is that the concept of neutral drift is absolute malarkey. This is proven by the persistence of recessive genetic defects. Because the carriers of the defect do not suffer from the defect, the defect remains in the population in spite of its deleterious effects on the progeny.
Also, as the population interbreeds, the various mutations in the population get "mixed and matched" very rapidly, the "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutations don't have to occur in any direct descendant of the individual with the "1st" mutation. If they occur *anywhere* in the population they can get shuffled together at any subsequent generation.
Not so, and again this is precluded by Mendelian genetics (that is why it is such a killer for evolution!). The mutations cannot get shuffled. Let say that individual A has a mutation, and individual B has a mutation, that they mate and both mutations are passed to the descendant. What will happen is that mutation A will be in one allele and mutation B will be in another allele, the alleles will not mix and create a new AB mutation. This is fairly simple genetics and it shows the impossibility of the propositions made by evolutionists.