From what Red Leader said, the body can only digest a maximum of 40 grams of protein over a two hour span. For OP's health's sake, I'd stay away from that. Why test your body's limit and think that you're actually digesting all of this protein? It's a waste of time and money (and patience!)
I wouldn't take my 40g/2hr ratio as gospel. It's one of those "your mileage may vary" things, first because people are different sizes, second because they have different internal variables (nitrogen balance, catabolic rates, etc) at different times, third because different types of proteins will be handled differently so "40 of one is not necessarily 40 of another." I should have made a note of this in my first post, that it was just a crude average. Sorry for any confusion.
Too much protein is only questionably dangerous if a person's remaining in sufficient enough of a catabolic state so as to overload the kidneys with nitrogen. Proper exercise, proper rest, proper water intake, proper amino acid supplementation, proper digestive enzimes, and so on to push the body as close to a positive nitrogen balance as possible while at the same time minimizing any risk to the internal organs.
Moreover, I said "almost half". It's an exaggerated statement to help support my point.
I really hope that you don't do this in your college papers.
When I think of eating for muscle mass, I think of eating slightly above what your body needs so it is a very controlled way to gain lean body mass. OP still has not stated whether he wants to be lean or Jay Cutler. So I assumed he'd probably need, for his body to SURVIVE ONLY, 1750 calories (source: addip's professors). So I gave it the benefit of the doubt in my mind and thought 2100 calories to start, which would make 700 calories in protein over 30% of his diet, still unattainable and annoying of a goal in the long run. This kind of a goal is one you crash and burn from, especially when you have no idea what you're doing.
The OP needs to provide us with his stats become we could realistically give him a survival caloric intake. Height, weigh, age, amount of cardio, any medical tests he has had done, etc.
I agree with what you've said about slightly more calories (including from protein) than survival in order to build muscle. However, what I don't get is your last line. Isn't he coming online, here and likely other places to, to figure out what he's doing? As well, shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt in that he might have the patience and drive to not burn out on a diet that may not be all that much fun? I'll accept that I might be different, and I find exercise and nutrition to be fascinating enough to not burn out when things get tougher, though.
I am not speaking from fact. I speak from reason. There are no such things as "facts" in science. Sorry. "Facts" don't even exist in mathematics. (source: my mathematics professors, physics professor and biology professor)
There are no observed facts in theoretical sciences, no. But what you're talking about in this thread is applied science. Valid arguments hold together theoretical science, and sound arguments hold together applied science. To show that an argument is sound, all of its premises must be shown to be true facts. Anything a professor says about how the building blocks of the universe must behave under given conditions would be like a valid argument, but any sound conclusions about human beings and their particular nutrition necessarily must first have (true) facts established as premises.