What I posted is exactly correct.

Your claim it's "simply not true" is more bullshit, on toppa alla the bullshit you've already posted.

In addition, it's not an intelligent argument that refutes what I've posted, i.e., exactly what I'd expect from you.

Genetic drift, the actual term for what you are attempting to describe, is a random event, not one that has a 50% chance of happening.

And being a random event, the results of the particular genetic drift at issue may be positive, or negative.

With humans, excepting inbreeding, genetic drift is akin to throwing darts while blindfolded. It's gonna hit somewhere, but that's not evolution.

And inbreeding, which would focus genetic drift, tends to devolve, rather than evolve.

Random differences in a species do not result in a new, or necessarily better, species.