a graph for borger to explain

dear Monkenstick,It seems to me as a nice Gaussian curve, i.e. normal distribution.best wishes,
Peter

dear All,End of the story, I guess.Peter

dear mammuthus,By now you must know what I mean by non-random and random mutations. I have explained over and overe and over, and I am not going to explain another time that non-random mutations are non-random with respect to nucleotide and position. So, I don not claim that the are non-random with respect to WHEN they will be introduced. I hope I do not have to explain this again, it is becoming annoying. You can find examples of these mutations in the 1G5 gene and in mtDNA (as discussed). Read also my mail #185 in the molecular genetic proof against random mutation.Best wishes,
Peter

dear Monkenstick,"I checked out this figure and apparently you have it from Dr Theobalds site of the talkorigin. I once had a discussion with Dr Theobald on cytochrome c incongruence and I have to admit that he is the best defender of evolutionism I've ever met in my entire life. I guess it is his full-time job. However, as mentioned before the cyt c incongruence could never be compellingly conluded since the Stellaria genome hasn't been sequences. So long it hasn't been sequenced I simply claim the stellaria cyt c incongruence as proof against common descent. By the way, he wasn't able to beat the IL-1 beta incongruence, neither the redundant src kinase family"This on the side. Now, with respect to the graph. A more fine tuning analysis of the figure may reveal two graphs that demonstrate overlap. In fact, there is some evidence for that if you have a careful look at the graph between 0.4 and 0.5 (x-axis). It may implicate the existance of two types of mutations.Best wishes,
Peter

dear Monkenstick,If you had kept up with my previous mails than you would have known that I introduced the concept of non-random and random mutations a couple of months ago in a reply to mark24.best wishes,
Peter