I keep telling you that your premises are false but you do not listen. Each person has two copies of a gene. A mutated gene or a duplicated gene will have only one copy of the mutation or of the duplication therefore your statements are false. Further, since this is a completely new mutation or duplication no one else in the species has it. Therefore whoever this individual mates with will not have a copy of the mutated gene or of the duplicated gene. That is why the math is so depressing for evolution. It does not matter whether the normal reproduction rate of a species is 1,2, or 50,000. The new gene has a reproductive disadvantage. This disadvantage is HUGE. It is half as much as that of any normal gene because there is only one copy of it. Normally genes have two copies in each individual and one gets chosen. These normal genes are slightly different sometimes but perform the same function. With the normal genes one gets chosen at random, the other does not. Since the mate also has the same old gene, and one gets chosen at random and one does not, the progeny will definitely get 2 copies of the gene according to the laws of genetics. See the diagram below:
From the article explaining genetics (maybe all the evolutionists here should read it) at: Introduction to Mendelian Genetics
A new duplicate gene (and it has to be dominant) would only have one copy - one "S" in the diagram, the mate would have nothing. Since it is dominant but there is no copy of it in the individual that has it, it only has half a chance of being reproduced in the progenitor. The same situation will occur if the progenitor gets it. He will again have half a chance of passing it on. Even if he has sex with a sister (who got the gene also by half a chance), it is still not certain that it will be passed on but it is highly likely that it will, however, the descendant of those two, still having just one copy of the gene will only have half a chance of passing it on. Only after many miraculous chances (equal to flipping heads consecutively many times) will the gene be able to become 'fixed' - meaning that it will be reproduced for sure in the species. However, any mutation would again have to go through the same series of steps and it would be just as hard for a single point mutation of such a gene to get spread throughout the species.
This problem is so devastating to evolution that Gould and Eldredge postulated their silly punk-eek which by supposing small populations made it easier to spread such a gene. It also led Kimura to throw out natural selection in favor of 'neutral drift' which really does not solve the problem but just covers it up.
You also keep failing to address my statement that if evolution supposedly creates whole new species, genes, etc., thanks to new genes which only give a slight advantage to the individual of much less than the 50% which we are talking about here, the opposite is not also true - that a disadvantage giving a gene a tremendous disadvantage in reproduction will not lead to its demise. Explain that one instead of playing silly numbers games.
Also, kindly note that all the other items I mentioned in post#105 not only remain unrefuted, but even unchallenged.