Someone else sequenced the p53 gene in those different species and entered it into a databank.
They looked into the databank and compared the sequences for those eleven species, finding that those responsible for the region that would bind to DNA were less likely to be different between species. This was a “dry” experiment. They only played with the sequences with math.
So how is this supposed to determine the frequency of mutation?
Short answer...it doesn't.
The authors tested the observed distribution of mutations against the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution. They then entered into the fallacy of affirming the consequent in an attempt to explain the non-random (i.e. probabilistic) distribution. Please note that the authors of the article use the term 'random' correctly and distinguish it from the probabilistic evidence that was observed. This is counter to your claim that the word that 'random' can be used in place of the term probabilistic.
"Someone else sequenced the p53 gene in those different species and entered it into a databank."
That's fine.
" They looked into the databank and compared the sequences for those eleven species, finding that those responsible for the region that would bind to DNA were less likely to be different between species. This was a “dry” experiment. They only played with the sequences with math."
As I said above, they tested the observed distribution of mutations against the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution. They found it non-random and then entered into a fallacy in an attempt to explain the non-random (i.e. probabilistic) distribution. Had they found a random distribution, there would have been nothing to explain.
"So how is this supposed to determine the frequency of mutation? Short answer...it doesn't."
I didn't say that the article 'determined the frequency of mutation'. I said that real scientists were finding that mutation isn't 'random'. Here's what the article said and one of the statements I quoted to you;
""Mutation hotspots were identified by comparing the observed distribution of mutations to the pattern expected from a random multinomial distribution."
Now, if you look at that statement, you can see that they compared observed mutation to a pattern expected from 'a random multinomial distribution'. Guess what. The pattern didn't fit this 'random multinomial distribution'.
Of course, we know that you don't dispute the probabilistic nature of mutation but choose to use the word 'random' to describe it when you understand that probabilistic is the correct term. You only want to argue whether this is the paper that proved probabilistic mutation, a claim I never made.