You have described how you think a mutation, once occurred, might spread in a population. Such an attempt, however poorly conceived, is a model. Yours is a poor one.
No it is not a model. And all your nonsense about recessive genes just shows your ignorance. Both dominant and recessive genes have an equal chance of being passed on to the next generation (another thing the charlatan Darwin did not know and of course ignored). The passing of genes is random from each allele of each parent regardless of whether a gene is dominant or recessive. The difference between a recessive gene and a dominant gene comes in when it is expressed in the progeny. In a recessive gene you need both genes passed on to the progeny to have the recessive gene for it to be expressed in the individual. In a dominant gene you only need one allele of it in the individual.
I am not surprised that you try to dismiss genetics as having to do anything with evolution. However, evolutionists have been forced to deal with it. That was the reason for the split in evolutionism between Neo-Darwinians, Punk-Eeks(Gould & Eldredge) , and Genetic Drifters (Kirmura). The split over genetic drift (mutations are spread completely at random without the help of selection) came from the realization that it was virtually impossible for small mutations to spread throughout a species because of the halving each time a new progeny is born. Punk-eek also recognizes this and that is why it states that speciation occurs in small isolated populations. It is easier for a gene to spread when individuals in a species are marrying their sisters.
Excuse me? I do not dismiss genetics. I dismiss simplistic, strawman models designed to fail.