Genetic info that is mutated to form new sequences and thus new proteins has to overcome sequence spaces where 1 out of 10^ 60 ish is a viable protein. 1 out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Anyways that's not the point. Point is epigenetic information plays major role in morphology and any alteration of epigenetic information is necessarily detrimental to the organism, as the system is irreducibly complex

You kidding me ? Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and any evolutionary biologists will tell you science is working on but cannot account for new body form. Cambrian explosion is an utter mystery. Science cannot account for MACROEvolution. Which is ultimately what is needed to account for disparity in nature. Color changes and beak size modifications etc are microevokutionary

I've read thousands of pages of scientific literature on the topic sir you will not disprove what I say hehe

dont see why it matters, the reality of it is we are insignificant specs

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not an evolutionist. Im done spamming lightmans thread. You should post your own topic.

My bad then

Q1- how should a program change from cutting to bulking (say for a hypertrophy routine), in terms of reps sets etc.

Q2- Cos the thermoenergetic effect of protein is the greatest of all macros, there's debate that it should be 3.2kcal per g rather than 4 kcal. Thoughts?

Q3- Would there be a difference in getting your protein macro requirements from just wheat protein (or soy protein), as opposed to whey protein? (A greater protein).

q2- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=177865829086572&set=a.176084402598048.1073741828.175556779317477&type=3&theater
i'll take q1 as a future discussion and will write about it shortly.

Here's something that's currently a working progress:
http://imageshack.us/a/img11/2286/13b3.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img809/1248/whra.png

Will have an entire hypothesis done some time next week.

U da man