Facts of evolution cannot be denied.

Wellwisher always remains good tempered but I have to say Paddoboy's comment about shitting on threads has some truth in it. It can be frustrating to have a good and serious discussion derailed by his effusions. Us old lags know to ignore him when a serious discussion is going on but some of our less regular posters don't know what Wellwisher is like and take him seriously, which then wrecks the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wellwisher, the properties of water are stable but the arrangement is not.

I'd be open to this if somehow these transient-yet-stable properties could be demonstrated. I appreciate that this is an enormously difficult undertaking, yet there it is. The essential problem is that water is common to all cells. There is no way in which it could be tested and demonstrated as a difference that has led to evolutionary change.

Regarding the criticism that "evolution is like rain" and thereby so unpredictable as to be nearly abstract: you realise that this is the biological sciences, yes? This isn't chemistry or physics. We're dealing with elements here that are, at numerous levels, approaching randomness in action. Yet we're able to observe mathematical elements of evolution and, what's more, actually test predictions. All this nonsense about not seeing it is just a juvenile smoke screen to advance a truly untestable concept: the ephemeral, esoteric concept of water structure. You are arguing unicorns, just like always.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me respond to Hipparchia's question about water not being mentioned in evolution; to clarify my point, I meant that water is not addressed in proportion to its contribution. I gave the example of the double helix of water that is hydrogen bonded within the DNA double helix, within the major and minor groove. This water is part of the DNA structure and will not come off with a centrifuge.

I have posted this, with pictures of the DNA-water double-double helix, at least a half dozen times in other discussions over the years. This is real and is not made up. It may seem made up, because like I said, water is not addressed in terms of its chemical connections and contributions. If it was, this would be common knowledge.

When I say evolution does not give proper treatment to water, I am referring to the physical chemistry of water, in relationship to its role, in almost all things in cell, and therefore its role in evolution. I am not talking about rain, rivers and drinking water which are also important to life, which are addressed. There is difference between saying water is important and actually using water as part of the chemical analysis of an enzyme. The DNA plus water is the actual active genetic material used by evolution. I am not making this up. It may appear so, because this is not taught and therefore not part of general knowledge. Doesn't anyone wish to be part of the future?

I don't always respond to every question, because most discussions never go anywhere, serious. Each sentence is critiqued like correcting spelling. Maybe not responding is seen as being rude but I prefer by productive than engage in group banter. Few people are interested in toying with the role of water in the cell and how that role impacts evolution. There is more interest in bogging down the discussion, and then tactically lumping anything off the mainstream schooling, like water-DNA, as religion. The DNA plus water quadruple helix is good place for education to modernize. and for religion in science to see light. Why not be part of the cutting edge.

I did make an analogy of an ancient tribesman predicting rain, and showed how his accuracy is not much different from the predictive power of evolutionary theory. We know evolution is real. We have seen examples in our own lives and we have large records of the past. But can anyone point, in advance, and say at this place and this time, we can all gather together and witness evolution?

Water is what will make that batting average better, because once all the variable are used, the final equation is more accurate. Again using water begins by realizing the DNA double helix does to work without the double helix of water. You cannot replace this water sine it role is both structural and energetics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you need to demonstrate this rather than proclaiming it in long, unsupported rhetorical screeds. Are you attempting to discuss the evolution of enzyme hydrophobicity? This is already known. "The DNA plus water is the actual active genetic material used by evolution" is a nonsense: every genome and every individual is 'affected' by water in the same way. Unless you can demonstrate differentiation plus alternate evolution based on water, this is empty posturing.

 

Yazata: From your Post #41

The above related to my Post #1

Your view might be valid in some (perhaps many) contexts. However, Darwinian evolution is such an excellent explanation of the facts of evolution that it cannot be refuted by attacking the POV. It can only be refuted by providing a better explanation.