Again, the reason I quoted that article was to demonstrate that mutation is not random as you had said. You have already admitted that you use the word 'random' when the word 'probabilistic' is the correct term to accurately describe the phenomenon.
You are either a fool or utterly dishonest. Either way, misrepresenting mutation as being 'random' when it is probabilistic shows you have no interest in approaching the subject honestly.
Ten posts later you are still confused about what the authors did, maybe if you read the abstract instead of chopping it up to quote it out of context you would have realized that they assumed mutation based upon common ancestry by looking at the gene, as it exists, in eleven different species. They never actually tested mutation to see if its probabilistic pattern of mutation where any mistake can and will happen, but some are more common than others.
Random, as a definition, includes probabilistic. Your objection is as ridiculous as saying someone who says “7 card stud is a random game” had no interest in approaching the subject honestly.
Mutation is random in the sense that it is probabilistic. Some mutations are made more often than others just as some errors in speaking are more common than others. Copying some DNA is like trying to say “rubber baby buggy bumpers” fast, mistakes are a little more common in those sequences. This doesn't mean that each mutation is somehow preordained and will happen every time, it is probabilistic.
Dice are probabilistic rather than random.