I compare monkey, chimp, human, badger, rat, mouse etc DNA.
The differences are due to mutation?
That is your claim. Live with it.
Moreover, even assuming the differences between species are due to mutation in a common ancestor, it still doesn't tell you anything about the frequency of mutation. Just which mutations can persist in a population.
You have no idea what your talking about. You insult the Scientists whose experiment you don't even understand while attempting to claim superior understanding. You amuse me to no end!
You mean without using the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
"I compare monkey, chimp, human, badger, rat, mouse etc DNA. The differences are due to mutation?"
You must assume ancestors-in-common and common descent before there is any relevance to anything. Without the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the differences don't mean anything.
"That is your claim. Live with it."
I clearly said that you cannot tell what is mutation and what was created difference between species without original DNA to compare against.
"Moreover, even assuming the differences between species are due to mutation in a common ancestor, it still doesn't tell you anything about the frequency of mutation. Just which mutations can persist in a population."
The authors compared observed mutation against a random multinomial distribution and found it probabilistic. They even used the terms 'random' and 'probabilistic' correctly, unlike yourself.
"You have no idea what your talking about. You insult the Scientists whose experiment you don't even understand while attempting to claim superior understanding. You amuse me to no end!"
You are a sadly confused and dishonest person. Your positions are nothing but fallacy upon fallacy upon non sequitur upon non sequitur.