This is just wishful thinking on your part and not fact. There is no reason at all why such a thing would happen in a random mutation. -you
Not wishful thinking at all. It is entirely plausible that the promoter remains intact after gene duplication. Initially, you have simply duplicated an entire stretch of DNA and end up with an identical copy with promoter, introns and the whole shebang.
A new gene, even a duplicate would not possibly have such a thing in the genome.
Completely flase assumption. I gave you several examples where amplification of a gene product could be beneficial. It could also have an indirect effect on the phenotype. In the case of an amplified gene, you already have the machinery in place in the appropriate cells to handle the augmentation in expression.
In addition to which if it was just a xerox copy, it just would at most double the functioning of the old gene which is very likely to be harmful.
Why would it be necessarily be harmful? On what are you basing your assumptions?
Even if the amplified gene is completely neutral, there should be instances where the duplication happens to occur on "good" DNA carrying alelles which already endow the organism with a better chance for survival. If they are close enough to each other they are effectively linked.
Some research indicates amplification effects are common and often render duplication mutations favorable.
The results of this analysis indicate that recently duplicated paralogs evolve faster than orthologs with the same level of divergence and similar functions, but apparently do not experience a phase of neutral evolution. We hypothesize that gene duplications that persist in an evolving lineage are beneficial from the time of their origin, due primarily to a protein dosage effect in response to variable environmental conditions; duplications are likely to give rise to new functions at a later phase of their evolution once a higher level of divergence is reached.From here.
One of the more spectacular examples is this one, which gore has seen and forgotten dozens of times. Other people have other implausible excuses for ignoring it.
That's very interesting and another evolutionist coverup. Before the promoter DNA was discovered evolutionists were calling all that other stuff 'junk DNA' and swore up and down that it was totally useless and in fact it was the remains of genes discarded by evolution. Now this junk DNA turns out is so essential that they add it to the fairy tale that not just the gene, but the promoter region gets copied. As I said before, a xerox copy of the promoter region would not do the job you assign to it. All it would do, being a xerox copy, is do exactly what the original gene's promoter region did - it would assign the same cells to do the original gene's job and it would assign the original gene to produce as it was doing already. So as I said, this would be a useless gene.