[GourmetDan]

"You are rather silly. Of course I know the difference between a protein and DNA. Central dogma of Molecular Biology is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. And what do you think determines the proteome if not the genome? You cannot make a protein without a gene to code for it."

You are rather silly. You missed a step between DNA and RNA. Do you know what it is? And how can a proteome be 3x the size of the genome if genes code 1 for 1? They don't. What's the missing step that allows genes to code for more than 1 protein?

"Every GENE in a chimp could be mutated so that it forms a fully functioning protein that is identical to a human protein."

Reference please.

"You have not yet said how you think DNA mutation is “constrained” nor do I hold out much hope of hearing a mechanism."

Of course I did. You either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. Here's what is concludes: "Epigenetic mechanisms constrain expression by adapting regions of the genome to maintain either gene silencing or gene activity." No expression, no 'selection', no 'evolution'.

"SEEING AS IN HUNDREDS OF POSTS YOU STILL FAIL TO POINT OUT WHAT MECHANISM YOU THINK PULLS THE SUN AROUND A MOTIONLESS EARTH!"

You either don't understand or you frame the question in a fallacious manner such that there can be no correct answer. That is the argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.

"I'll quit wasting my time with you, even though you finally did see the truth of the matter that a bacteria increases its mutation rate in response to stress in order to better survive that stress. Baby steps. Baby steps."

No 'finally' to it. I have known for years that bacteria increase their mutation rate when survival is threatened. As I already explained to you, your 'outcome' presuming that this ability arose through 'evolution' is purely philosophical and no more empirical than the opposite 'outcome' of presuming that this ability was created.

You've got to crawl before you can even take that first baby step and I don't see you even crawling yet.

[ColdWater]

already explained to you, your 'outcome' presuming that this ability arose through 'evolution' is purely philosophical and no more empirical than the opposite 'outcome' of presuming that this ability was created.

Perhaps it was "created" through "evolution". Now, can we all be happy?

[allmendream]

You do not understand the clear meaning of words.

“Epigenetic mechanisms constrain expression by adapting regions of the genome to maintain either gene silencing or gene activity.”

Nothing about mutation, or mutation being “constrained”. EXPRESSION is being constrained. You do know what expression is don't you? It is the DNA gene being transcribed into RNA and then being translated into a protein. THAT is gene expression, and it is controlled by epigenetic mechanisms.

NOTHING about epigenetic mechanisms of DNA methylation and histone modification constrain mutation. Once again you simply have no idea what your talking about.

[allmendream]

And do you think “Random” is synonymous with “Out of the control of God”?

And how are you going to demonstrate that mutation is non random when every experiment with error prone DNA polymerase or mutatagens show that mutations create unique genetic variation rather than making the same mutations every time?