That is your claim. If they studied “distribution of mutation” by comparing how the gene exists in different species then for those differences to have arisen by mutation they must have been the same species at one point.
The differences between the human p53 gene and a monkey p53 gene are due to mutation in a common ancestor.
Nice to hear you admit as much.
But it still doesn't show the frequency of mutations as they happen, just how they survive within a population (Selection not mutation).
Not necessarily. You are confusing a couple of different things. I have already stated my claim that you cannot tell what is mutation what is original created difference without original DNA to compare. The authors of the article obviously are not creationists and approach the subject from an evolutionary perspective. This does not mean that mutation isn't probabilistic (as you already have admitted). It only means that you cannot definitively say that all differences are due to mutation.
It is also no defense for your position of equating the term 'random' with the correct term probabilistic. The authors of the article certainly didn't make that error. That you insist on your 'right' to do so speaks volumes.
" The differences between the human p53 gene and a monkey p53 gene are due to mutation in a common ancestor. Nice to hear you admit as much."
You are sadly confused. The claim of a 'common ancestor' is a non sequitur to the fact that mutation is probabilistic.
"But it still doesn't show the frequency of mutations as they happen, just how they survive within a population (Selection not mutation)."
Again, that is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
You continually fall into non sequiturs and fallacies when defending your position. Had you any critical thinking skills, that would be classic evidence that you hold an invalid position.