Yes, I now you will continue to be deceptive. Evolution cannot stand without it.
"A Card game is RANDOM. You can cry at me until you are blue in the face that it is “probabilistic” and I will laugh and tell you AGAIN that the definition of random INCLUDES probabilistic."
A card game is not random. It is probabilistic. There is a difference.
"And your intent in using a Gibson quote? You showed two things with that little tactic. One, you are dishonest enough to take a paper about evolutionary analysis and chop a quote of it out of context. Two; that you are not intelligent enough to discern that they never even tested mutation, they assumed it based upon the concept of common descent."
Again, all I was doing was showing that mutations are not random. You agree that they are probabilistic, which is a different thing.
"If you had any sense of shame you would be embarrassed by repeatedly showing your abject ignorance of the subject. But I guess being a Geocentricist means never admitting you are losing an argument."
If you had any sense of shame, you would be embarrassed by repeatedly showing your totally disingenuous use of terms. But I guess being an evolutionist means never admitting you are losing an argument.
They compared a sequence in eleven different species.
When they spoke of “mutation” that was ASSUMED based upon common ancestry. A Creationist would say that those differences were DESIGNED from the BEGINNING, not mutated from a common ancestor.
The paper showed absolutely nothing about how mutations happen.
The paper was about the protein p53 in eleven different species and a comparison of those differences. Those differences were not evenly distributed. One must assume common ancestry to think it tells you anything about mutation (i.e. which mutations of the p53 gene are ‘allowed’).
Do you assume common ancestry? Because you might have a point if you do (a wrong one). If your not assuming common ancestry than the paper had NOTHING to do with MUTATION at any time from the beginning of time.
Will this ever sink in, or do I have to go line by line through the paper abstract again and explain it to you?