I’ve already explained this, if you were paying attention.
Gaussian?
What result? You have cited a paper that itself gets its information from a much older paper that predates the publication of the chimpanzee genome. And the chimp genome paper has a much better value, based on the entire genome rather than just 100 or so genes. You’re right that it’s a trivial point, but the fact that you refuse to correct it is not at all trivial.
No, it can’t. I presume you refer to alternative splicing, but functional alternative splicing is quite rare, and most such splicing is probably just noise, as is much transcription.
Not at all true. We understand most of the genome, and most of it is junk. I must suppose that you have been selectively reading only what you want to be true. Though it’s true that the popular press is a bad source for science, and creationist web sites are worse.
Then you should pay attention when people cite actual data to you, as has happened many times, all of which you have ignored. This is not good practice.
Judging by result, most mutations are neutral. Judging by result, most protein differences between humans and chimps are neutral. You have been shown publications to that effect. Have you noticed them?
Most of the non-coding regions are junk. Most indels are in junk DNA and affect nothing.
I expect you made some faulty assumptions. If you would run it by here, someone might be able to point out those assumptions. I’m guessing a combination of requiring sequential mutations and assuming a particular target (the Texas sharpshooter fallacy).
I’d be interested in your reasons for thinking that a few thousand mutations couldn’t do the job and your reasons why they would have to “line up”, whatever that means.