Depends on when you want to measure 'relative frequency'. Before error-correction mechanisms in the cell or after. I did not assume that selection had anything to do with the probabilistic frequencies noted. You do and want to call them 'random'. They are not random, they are probabilistic.
" They compared a sequence in eleven different species. When they spoke of “mutation” that was ASSUMED based upon common ancestry."
Yes, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I don't subscribe to it although apparently scientists can fall into such a fallacy and be published in a peer-reviewed journal as long as they conform to the principles of philosophical naturalism.
"A Creationist would say that those differences were DESIGNED from the BEGINNING, not mutated from a common ancestor."
Wrong again. A creationist would say that mutations occurred probabilistically (not randomly) in different species and would not assume 'common descent' as it was fallaciously assumed in the paper.
" 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."
That's correct. The mutations were probabilistic with certain ones occurring more often than others. They certainly weren't 'random' across the gene. That's why I cited it for you. That was before you admitted that you used the word 'random' in place of the correct term, probabilistic.
One must assume common ancestry to think it tells you anything about mutation (i.e. which mutations of the p53 gene are ‘allowed’).
It is not necessary to assume a common ancestry. One can also assume that mutations occur probabilistically (not randomly) in the same gene in different species genomes.
"Will this ever sink in, or do I have to go line by line through the paper abstract again and explain it to you?"
The real question before us is whether you will ever admit that you misrepresent the term 'random' when you should use the term probabilistic to describe mutation.
The differences in p53 protein in a badger,bear, wolf, human, chicken,cow, cat, etc are not evenly distributed. There are less differences in the region of the protein that binds to DNA.
This is what the paper you cited says.
It doesn't say anything about mutation unless you assume common ancestry.
Anybody home in there?
Random: 2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.