Is the 'Randomness' of Evolution Really Random?

[Wellwisher]

I stand by what I said previously, and I think you're just making stuff up now.

You are partially correct. These are predictions based on decades of studying and pondering hydrogen bonding and water and how these interface to biomaterials. This aqueous side of life is not taught so I try to teach it.

For example, there is a double helix of water within the DNA double helix, yet the DNA is rarely shown this way, in any textbook. The DNA will not work without it, yet this is ignored and never taught. I bet if textbooks showed the DNA with the water helixes, new questions would be raised and new doors would open.

I remember years ago wondering why some of the bases of DNA has more hydrogen bonding hydrogen than it used. It turned out these were ear marked for the water helixes.

 

[BillTre]

Just having "another way to look at the same things" does not mean that makes any sense.
If you have some new way of explaining things you want someone else to take interest in, you should show:

• how it explains things that are not explained well
• show its is still compatible with other unchallenged concepts in the field

You are not doing this.
You also seem to have zero support (based upon you inability to find any thing published anywhere that supports your claims).

This stuff is getting really confused:

Rather the brain can control the aqueous environment outside the cells, thereby impacting their internal aqueous equilibrium. When cell cycles happen the membrane potential lowers due to ion reversal caused by the fluidity of the membrane.

Any control the brain might have on "the aqueous environment outside the cells" would be through controlling the water and ion flew in and out of the body. this is completely different from any membrane caused changes in ion content during cell division.

The nerve connection will inhibit the cell cycle because the control cell’s membrane potential is held hostage. It can’t formed the correct internal aqueous equilibrium mode to replicate freely.

This is your unsupported conjecture. I don't thing there is any proof of this.
If there is please reference or link to it.

The large size of dinosaurs was probably due to their smaller brains unable to inhibit body cell replication.

This is fantasy.

Their brain could maintain differentiation control; internal equilibrium, but not fully inhibit replication. Since the cells of the dinosaur body were dominant, growing, the brain cells would see a potential to replication. The brain grew.

It is hard to make any sense out of this.

These are predictions based on decades of studying and pondering hydrogen bonding and water and how these interface to biomaterials. This aqueous side of life is not taught so I try to teach it.

I beg to differ.
In the 1980's I took a physical biochemistry course what covered exactly these kinds of phenomena.
Not something new.
Your teaching is completely unconvincing without any kind of referencing.

I remember years ago wondering why some of the bases of DNA has more hydrogen bonding hydrogen than it used.

Would not having a more distinctive binding structure for the two different sets of base pairs be enough? Proper binding (which having a distinction of a 2 vs. 3 H-bond recognition surface might conceivably strengthen) is basic to all maintaining of genetic information and would be strongly selected for.

It turned out these were ear marked for the water helixes.

Does this mean that there was a plan before DNA was made for the water molecules to be in particular places?

 

[Drakkith]

For example, there is a double helix of water within the DNA double helix,

Unless this is composed of ice, then there is no water helix, since liquid water doesn't form a solid structure like the DNA molecule is.

These are predictions based on decades of studying and pondering hydrogen bonding and water and how these interface to biomaterials. This aqueous side of life is not taught so I try to teach it.

This is nonsense. The interaction of water with other molecules inside the cell is extremely important to biochemistry, and it is ludicrous that it isn't taught where it is needed. You might be right in that it isn't taught in a lower level biochemistry class (I don't know if it is or isn't), but you can be certain that the scientists working on understanding protein folding and other advanced topics understand how water functions in the cell.

I think the issue is that you're elevating water's function in the context of evolution without really having a valid reason for it. As I already said, these details just aren't that important to the general principles of evolution. Are they important for the details of how life on this planet formed and functions? Absolutely. But whether it's water or something else, the general ideas of biological evolution still apply.

We don't talk about water when talking about evolution for the same reasons we don't talk about the properties of sulfur-based molecules inside the cell. Or any other specifics. They are simply different topics. Biochemistry isn't evolution, even though the two are obviously related.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

Thread will stay closed. Thanks for everybody's contributions.