Your responses are getting pitiful, seriously.
Saying it’s 50/50 is to say what the trend is: In your opinion the trend is 50/50.
But it isn’t 50/50 (the average mutation is actually destabilizing on protein structure as empirical studies designed to get at the tendency shows), and your supervision of your postdocs and students finding 8 stabilizing mutations in alpha-tropomyosin doesn’t show that it’s 50/50.
You finding cases where mutations (to active sites, for example) are stabilizing is a textbook example of cherrypicking. Proteins are more than their active sites.
There are studies that do the work no single or collection of cherrypicked studies do. Attempt to get a distribution of effects. They find that it’s a gaussian, with the mean substantially in the destabilizing. I cite some of them in that thread, there are others that show the same.
Why do I have to explain this? You should not need me to explain this. What the fork is going on?