Thank you for exposing your command of human genetics. Consider the following quote from the accompanying reference.<quoted text>
I see one glaring error right off. You have assumed that the control regions correspond to hypervariable and coding to conserved. Wrong. Parts of the coding and control regions are conserved and parts are hypervariable although the most hypervariable will probably be neither coding nor control.
And where in the cycle does affect the raw rate. You fail to understand that an egg cell that never even makes it to ovulation has not even entered the genetic cycle, and the eggs that do make it to ovulation and hence the opportunity to be fertilised are therefore already heavily skewed in terms of mutation distribution.
But even if this were not the case, the fact that mutations in the conserved regions are more likely to be deleteriois means that the variations making it into the permanent "branching ancestry" of variation are far more likely to be in the hypervariable regions so these regions will show a greater rate of change than conserved regions.
You arse about with you "raw" claim
And have still not faced the fact that it does not help you in the least.
You refuse to understand what kills your case, an pretend to have a point when you only havve an empty bromide.
Such pitiful dishonesty KAB. You must know you are doing it. How do you live with yourself?
"The human mitochondrial genome contains two parts: one encompasses DNA coding 13 mRNA, 2 rRNA, and 22 tRNA, and the other constitutes a control region responsible for the expression of mitochondrial genome."
Having confirmed you fail to understand, consider further that an egg has DNA, mtDNA in particular. It is part of the genetic cycle.
Hopefully now you will recognize there is no "if this were not the case". What you stated is not the case.
Undersandably, you may feel the need for a bromide after this. I don't recommend living like that however.