No, you are absolutely wrong and if you look it up instead of looking for excuses for you phony evolution, you would stop repeating that nonsense. The chances are 50% because there are two alleles and by all scientific research either one is as likely to be chosen as the other. Since a new gene would have no allele it would only have a 50% of going on to the next generation. If it survived, it would only have a 50% chance of continuing to the next one and so on until such time as it had spread enough that sometimes both parents would have such a gene, so stop talking garbage and start facing the truth. You must remember this is a new gene - no one else has it. The chances of its spreading are very slim indeed. Because there is no selective advantage in a useless gene the chances of its spreading are always the same 50% at each reproduction. Such genes dissappear from the population for the same reason that any gene which which is detrimental (and that is the basis of your stupid evolution) dissappears if it goes around killing those who have it - because the rate of reproduction of that particular gene is less than that of the population at large. Even if you start with a population of one million with half having one gene (call it A) who reproduces at 100% and the other half which reproduces at 90% of the rate of the first gene (call it B), gene B will almost dissappear and be in less 1/1000th of the population in a mere 100 generations.
And no, 4, 5 and 6 do not magically dissappear as a problem to evolution no matter how much you would like them to. The one chance of finding a correct series of mutation at random (because again the gene is non functional) is astronomical. In addition to which, regardless of your nonsense about 'inefficiency is good' carrying extra baggage which does nothing is never beneficial, if you don't believe me, put ten pound weights on your clothes and start carrying them around for a while and let me know how much benefit you derived from it.
No, you are absolutely wrong and if you look it up instead of looking for excuses for you phony evolution, you would stop repeating that nonsense. The chances are 50% because there are two alleles and by all scientific research either one is as likely to be chosen as the other. Since a new gene would have no allele it would only have a 50% of going on to the next generation. If it survived, it would only have a 50% chance of continuing to the next one and so on until such time as it had spread enough that sometimes both parents would have such a gene, so stop talking garbage and start facing the truth.
This is true only if there is always only one child per family.
You must remember this is a new gene - no one else has it. The chances of its spreading are very slim indeed. Because there is no selective advantage in a useless gene the chances of its spreading are always the same 50% at each reproduction.
Repeat after me: "The chances are 50% per child." OK, let's try a simple experiment & see what happens:
Take a quarter & flip it. What did you get? There's a 50% chance you got Heads.
Now flip it 9 more times. What's the chance that at least one flip turned up Heads? It's 75% after the 2nd flip, 87.5% after the 3rd flip ... and 99.9% (1023/1024) after the 10th flip.
Still don't believe me? Try the experiment again. Flip the quarter 10 times & record how many tries produced at least one Heads. Keep trying until you get no Heads after 10 flips in a row or until it's bedtime. (Trust me: Bedtime will arrive first, virtually every time.) Now try this variation:
Take the quarter & flip it 10 times. Record how many Heads you got. I'll bet it was more than one. Now do it again - flip it 10 times. Record how many Heads. And again. And again.
You'll come up with an average of 5 Heads for each 10 flips.
By this time your stomach should be churning, and for good reason: At some level you realize that each flip represents one child for the parent. Each Head represents each child who got the neutral mutation. When you get 5 Heads after 10 flips, that represents our neutral mutation going from only one individual - the parent - to six individuals - the parent & the 5 Heads.
(I told you that'd be scary!)
o = child with original gene
M = child with mutated gene
Mutant parent's family #1: o o o M o o o o M M = 3 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #2: M M o M o o M o o o = 4 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #3: o M o o M o M o o o = 3 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #4: M o o o M o o M M M = 5 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #5: o o M M M o o M o o = 4 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #6: M M M M o o M M o o = 6 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #7: M o M M M o o M o o = 5 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #8: o o M o M o M o o M = 4 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #9: o M o o M o o o o M = 3 mutant children
Mutant parent's family #10: o M o M M M M M M M = 8 mutant children
Out of 100 children, 45 were mutants. Pretty close to 50% odds per child, wouldn't you say? In fact, if it wasn't for that last outlier family the results would've been 41% mutants instead of 45%. Maybe the mutation was slightly harmful! LOL!