You have a tendency to post assertions that sound specific, but which have no content. You criticise my grammar without providing an example. (I'm not saying I don't make errors, but you are not nitpicking typos. You are asserting something about my style without providing evidence.)
Your comments about evolution vs change are just nuts. You routinely exhibit misunderstanding of the most elementary concepts in evolution -- starting with the absurd notion that evolution is not primarily a matter of changes in DNA. After making such boneheaded blunders, you have the nerve to talk about what biologists do.
Look, I can read as well as you can. NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change".
Heretofore it has been used exclusively to mean a conceptual process of a very special kind.
When you elect to change a word you'd best be careful to try to escape the notice of the nomenclatura.
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
On the other hand, you don't use enough commas. I know you think you do, but you don't. Listen to how you speak sometime. Certainly you don't talk the way you write, else you'd suffocate.
Certainly you are aware that DNA methylation has an impact.
Or, maybe you don't.
The lady who got the Nobel for her discovery of "jumping genes" (Dr. Barbara McClintock) probably would not agree with you that reshuffling DNA strands actually "changes" the DNA in those strands itself.
All I've said is what I've read that was written by experts in the field who argue that reordering of DNA, not mutations, effectuates more evolutionary change than any other process.
Nearly half our genome is composed of transposons according to this site: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml
Now, come back and tell us again that moving a gene from one spot to another "mutates the DNA".
Just gotta' hear it ~ no wonder you can't understand the English language.