"Now, at 200,000 mutations, which is more important? Draw your straight line through there! Cherry-picking data, huh?" 
The same conclusion would be reached at 200,000 random mutations as for 0, 1, or 2...though the effort involved at illustrating said conclusion would be raised considerably (your goal, rather than having an honest debate).
I made my point by showing what happens at 0 mutations. Then I re-made my point by showing it again at 1 random mutation and then again at 2.
Your argument, in contrast, is so weak that you are left to merely raise the bar (e.g. to 200,000 random mutations). By that process, as soon as I showed the same result for 200,000 random mutations, you'd be so cheeky as to demand a result for 200 trillion random mutations.
Which is to say, you failed at 0, you failed at 1, you failed again at 2, and you'd likewise fail at 200,000 and 200 trillion...though you'd delay the inevitable with such inanities.
Which is to say, you failed at 0, you failed at 1, you failed again at 2, and you'd likewise fail at 200,000...No, I would succeed in my point, because at that rate of mutation, selection would play a greater role. Zero, one and two are all at the same basic scale, which is why you are using such laughably small numbers. If you were honest about it, you would admit the possibility that the graph would change at higher numbers, because it is far more logical. But, as I have found that you are untruthful, even to the point of asserting people said things that they never actually said (as you did in post #330), it is obvious that you will not even admit to the obvious. How can you trust a person's arguments when those arguments are built on lies?