HydrogenBond

Swearing is considered, by many, as behavior that is beneath the dignity of civilized and educated people. If I said nothing but swears on this forum site, I would be get a warning or worse. There is a certain level of taboo, when it comes to swearing, in certain social settings. What a taboo implies, is a contract of social conformity. In this case, the contract is to do the opposite of the taboo; thou shall not swear. If you do the math, conformity means your choices are already predefined, outside you, by the group. I cannot choose to swear, freely, and also meet the needs of the social contract. I can only do one or the other. Therefore, if I swear, I break the bond of conformity, and may be exiled from the herd. Exile, then means a need to be more self reliant. The added self reliance, means the unconscious mind will need compensate for the loss of the herd, allowing more creative unconscious output. If you are part of the group, you have a role to play. That role may not be suitable for all tasks. If you break ranks with the group, by insubordination via a swearing taboo, your role is neutralized by the group, so now there is need for adaptation. Swearing can give one the feeling of defiance, where habits of conformity, no longer apply. Like setting the pin, a new adaptation appears.

The wolf pack requires more development of language (barking and body language) skills, so they can interact as a team in hunting situations. Language, in turn, allows a wider range of extrapolations to new situations. This allows wolves to migrate and do well in most environments. They are not dependent on routines and/or fixed ecosystems since they can extrapolate via its members. Also a team can be more than the sum of its parts. In sports, periodically, a championship team will be composed of less than the all star players of the league. The team allows even lessor skilled players, to amply themselves, in the context of the team. Part of the wolf team tradition involves training via pack competition for alpha dog. They will fight with each other, almost 100%. This is connected to training, with the alpha dog, becoming the pack leader. It also defines the pack hierarchy. The pack leader has the hardest job during the hunt. He does not sit back behind enemy lines barking orders. He is has lead from the front, which is the most dangerous job. The pack hierarchy assures the dog with the best chance of survival; alpha, will be their leader. He has to fight something that can kill him, until the others can out flank the critter.

The water that is hydrogen bonded to the bases of the DNA and is therefore part of its structure, reflects the information contained on the bases and therefore on the genes. This water plays a role in gene recognition and therefore contains reflected information that persists since it is bonded to the DNA in very specific ways. The analogy is clay does not contain information. However if you press the clay onto your face, it now looks like you, This is not my opinion, but is based on peer reviewed papers in the journal of biophysical chemistry. I have made such claims in the past, based on my own inferences. Over the past year or two I found proof, I found Dr Chaplin's web site about water and found that my claims had a basis in peer reviewed science. http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nucleic_acid_hydration.html Ref 889: S. Magazù, F. Migliardo, C.Mondelli and M. Vadalà, Correlation between bioprotective effectiveness and dynamic properties of trehalose-water, maltose-water and sucrose-water mixtures, Carbohydr. Res. 340 (2005) 2796-2801; ( :cool: S. Magazù, F. Migliardo and A. J. Ramirez-Cuesta, Changes in vibrational modes of water and bioprotectants in solution, Biophys. Chem. 125 (2007)138-142; © F. Affouard, P. Bordat, M. Descamps, A. Lerbret, S. Magazù, F. Migliardo, A. J. Ramirez-Cuesta and M. F. T. Telling, A combined neutron scattering and simulation study on bioprotectant systems, Chem. Phys. 317 (2005) 258 -266. The system of pure DNA, without water, is not bioactive. Information is contained on the genes, but you cannot access this information using pure DNA alone. The DNA needs water to help induce the active state. Water also plays a role in gene recognition as well as providing free energy for protein binding. http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref15.html#r1443 Protein configurations are also dependent on water. To answer the last question, what always puzzled me is how does everything know where go in the cell. Why is this not random with nucleus protein ending near the membrane and membrane protein near the DNA? You have the DNA, making mRNA, which then goes to the ribosomes to make protein. The protein can be all types and these go every which way, yet they all find their proper places in the cell. The question is how is this possible? Water offers a medium that can make this possible. Proteins need to become hydrated to become active; see above. The protein, in turn, will impose order in the water, which depending on the surface groups, can extend considerable distances, at the nanoscale. If this ordered water is next to another protein, the water order can become more continuous between the two. As with the DNA, water plays a role in recognition and energetics. http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/protein_hydration.html The last line about strong electric fields reminds of the study I posted about million volt electric fields on the surface water of DNA. These extend about a nanometer out from the DNA. The problem we appear to have, is connected to biology and biochemistry education rarely mentioning the latest life water research. Water considerations for life, although peer reviewed science, therefore appears like it is all made up. Many assume that their education would include this if it was true. Then again, the state of the art takes time to reach education.

I narrowed my discussion to predicting the future, not the past or finding new places between other places in a catalog. We could do that with rocks without knowing anything about the chemistry of rocks. If you gather enough samples, from different terrains and environments you can anticipate the rocks in similar environments. This is not the same as predicting a future rock, that is not in the catalog, yet. That requires knowledge of the chemistry of rocks. It has to be complete chemistry, or else the prediction will be a crap shoot. If you needed to put a man on the moon, and this had never been done before, inferring from cataloging is useless. You will need to break the goal down into steps, and define the logic for each step and the logic that connects the steps. Random will not do, since there is no room for compounding errors. Settle this by making a future prediction using evolutionary theory, as is? I am not trying to be contrary. I am trying to be evolutionary in terms of the utility of evolution. You need to include the properties of water to make the happen.

The human psyche is grounded on personality firmware, which are common to all humans, and which define us as a species. These have been called the archetypes of the collective unconscious by the late psychologist Carl Jung. For example, you can take a kitten, away from its mother at a young age, and it will still develop cat behaviors, independently. The kittens have innate behavior characteristics, that define them as a species; firmware. The same is true of humans. We can empathize with other humans because we all feel similar things in a similar way due to firmware; genetic based. Besides this foundation, which lies deep in the unconscious mind, we also have the ego and conscious mind, which is more on the surface of the personality. This is more unique to the individual. The ego is innate, but it evolves itself though conscious interaction with the environment. Whereas the firmware is nature, the ego evolves via nurture. The result is we often have two things going on at the same time. A good example is training a puppy.The puppy has its personality firmware that defines it as young dog, that wants to play. This is innate and would allow the dog to practice skills so it can survive in the wild. We train the dog to our conscious needs. The final composite dog, is both nature and nurture at the same time. If the dog is a tracking dog, he may half listen to us, when it smells a scent in the air. He may develop an odd ritual before it sits. There is also one further thing connected to what is called projection. Projection is where the unconscious mind, to make content conscious, will shine like a movie, onto reality. What we see is partially from the environment, and partially from our own psyche. If you ever raised a kitten, they will race around the house chasing imagery prey. The firmware are projecting imaginary prey, allowing it to do some skills training. At the same time, the kitten is well aware of all the furniture and hazards of the home, as they run up, over and around these objects in space and time. In the case of humans we have similar propensities for many things, like chocolate cake, due to the firmware. The unconscious can also project types. Einstein is a type characterized by high intelligence that make simple day to day tasks less than perfect. We may project that type in another, or we may see that in the mirror, and then make a conscious effort to externalize the projection. Others will also see this type since it will active the firmware which may then project more idealism than is real. The classic example of human projection is falling in love. Often the beloved appears idealized to the person who is under the spell of love. Our family and friends may not see the same person with those ideal characteristics, because they are not projecting. On the other hand, we may not be able to see the person for whom they are, because we are not aware that we are projecting. The firmware has a goal in mind and is using projection to help lead up to san end game; procreation. This leads to the ego not only being nurtured by the environment but also by projection into the environment. The young hard hearted you who falls in love due to projection, may learn to soften because of the idealized projection of love.

Rather than get into the chemistry, which you are trying to distract from, I will stay more along the lines where you seem to feel more comfortable. Make a prediction using conventional evolutionary theory; genetic mutations followed by natural selection. For example, what will be the next stage of human evolution? Or what new species will appear next? Next, make a prediction as to how far a ball will go, that is shot from a tube out of the ground, at 100 mph at a 45 degree angle? This prediction can be made use projectile motion equations. Or predict the amount of rocket fuel needed to send a man to the moon? The weakest theory, of these three, in terms of making a prediction, is evolutionary theory. The current theory of evolution is a good theory for cataloging and organizing data, from the past and/or after the fact. It is not useful for making predictions of the future. In terms of making predictions, it is at the stage of science, where shooting the ball from the tube in ground, would be treated like a mystery or random event, which you can record and catalog, after the fact. But it would be considered luck or taboo to make a prediction, and get it right. If you do enough cataloging of the ball shooting from the tube, you would able to infer that if we shoot the ball from the tube, it will land somewhere and not keep going forever. But we still can't tell, in advance, based on this cataloging, exactly where it will land, even after 60 years of the same theory and procedure. Science is not about appearance, due to lab coats, but the goal is practical utility. Other than collecting and organizing evolutionary data, using the methods of science, the utility of contemporary evolutionary theory, in terms of making predictions, is not much different from Creationism. They also catalog changes in the universe and to life, based on their theory. Like evolutionary theory, even with cataloging, Creationism cannot be used to make predictions. Repeatable prediction is the litmus test of sound theory. It is not just about cataloging bigger and better than another theory. The theory of natural selection is acceptable, because it can be used to make predictions. Once a change occurs, one can make a prediction, as to whether this change will allow advantages or disadvantages, based on the environment. The front end of evolution, connected predicting the change, is not as advanced, as the tail end; natural selection, in terms of making predictions. The overall theory is lopsided. You don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion. Religion is based on formal traditions, which are not allowed to change, since these define the very nature of the religion. Once changed, a religion becomes something new. Science is different, since science is not about defending the traditions of a religion, but accepting change if better. Change is acceptable if it lead to greater utility. The truth is experimental results, especially over the past 20 years, have been able to investigate and show the importance of water in terms of the structures and dynamics of the DNA, as well as all cellular materials. You appear to resist any change to the cell in a vacuum dogma, and appear to treat evolution as a religion, that would lose its identity if anything was to change. You do no wish the goddess of chaos and chance to be displaced, with a new testament based on water and logic. The water science is sound and peer reviewed. Your argument is about defending the essence of a dogma. You have not once even tried to refute any of the science I have presented. You don't want the dogma touched in any form, even if the science presented is sound. I have been consistent with this since the beginning. I have tried to develop different approaches to make it better. It was of late that I found the key to the future; prediction.

After that long detour, I would like to add a brief discussion of the above quote. The free energy change in the water aids in the conversion of single stranded DNA, into the more common DNA double helix. Water can hydrogen bond to both single or double stranded DNA, with water part of both structures. The double helix is preferred because this lowers the energy of the water the most, all the way to three hydration layers; cooperative hydrogen bonding. It is not the DNA double helix, due to base pairing, being stable on its own; in a vacuum, in spite of the water or any solvent. Water is not just a solvent used to loosen the DNA. The DNA double helix is more stable, because this conformation benefits both the free energy of the water. The DNA double helix plus water system is at minimum energy, with the water is making the base pairs 50% weaker. The DNA is energized by the water, with the water at very low free energy. What this also means is if we were to energize the nucleus water, so the nucleus water has to maintain a higher level free energy floor, then single stranded DNA becomes more favorable at equilibrium. If we then lower the energy floor of the nucleus water, then the DNA double helix wants to form to meet the needs of the lower free energy floor. This is useful for replication on the DNA, since tweaking the local and bulk water can help or inhibit enzyme complexes by loosening or tightening the DNA double helix. One could also argue, that you can inhibit genes by making the local water too stable, since the double helix will not want to separate, easily, and if it does, it will prefer to reform the double helix very quickly.

Turtle, if you had more competence in chemistry, you would see where I am going. Your critique is based on bias memory and repeat, with very little demonstrated understanding of chemistry. The DNA double helix, as shown in text books, and in any google image search, is not bioactive. That is obsolete science, that your have memorized as dogma science. Water is a necessary part of the active structure of the DNA. There are places reserved on all the bases of DNA and RNA, earmarked for water. The water hydrogen bonds to these reserved places, and then to each other, to form a double helix of water, that occupies the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. This is called reality, based on proven science. This has nothing to do with homeopathy. I am not even sure where that comparison comes from other than a buzz word to sour opinion and confuse the facts. Say you designed a theory of evolutionary change, based on a DNA double helix, that is not bioactive. Your theory will be incorrect, by default. It is not because DNA is not a template material, nor that DNA is not subject to change. This is also not due to the fact that the DNA in all cells is bioactive. Rather double helix DNA, without the necessary water, is not bioactive. This is overlay simplified and flawed. You cannot substitute other solvents for water, because places are reserved for water to be included on the DNA. Other solvents will not hold the double helix of DNA in the correct conformation for the DNA to be bioactive. But if you persist in the double helix, only, fairy tale, the result is the need for a random assumption to compensate for a poor foundation premise. Let me do this a different way. Predict a future evolutionary change for any living system? According to the scientific method, a theory should be able to make predictions, that are repeatable by others. The current model; front end for evolution, does not live up to the standards of a theory that can make a prediction! The theory is not that advanced. Once a change does occur, we can point it out. But that is not prediction. That is 20/20 hindsight. A backwoods native, with no modern science education, can point out weather, after it happens. He can't make predictions. He can keep track of the weather in cave writings. And he can also say this is proof that his god of the winds and rain is responsible for all weather. If you ask how his god doe this, he can say his god is fickle, so humans can't know her mind. The front end of the current evolutionary model is a form of creationism. There are two creationism models, neither of which can make predictions in terms of evolution, before the fact. One is based on the god of order and the other based on the god of random. I chose order instead of random, because natural selection uses order. Natural selection is based on the logic of known environmental potentials not throwing dice. The part of the evolutionary model that does work is the second aspect; natural selection. If we have a change, due to the god of wind/rain or gambling casinos, you can use logic to determine if this change will help to hurt, relative to what already exists. There is a logical order from which one can infer. The upfront random change approach does not satisfy the needs of prediction. This has been my focus. This is where I have contented, from the beginning, the model is flawed. Not the entire model, but the front end. I am an applied engineer and I can tell if a theory is useful or useless. If useless, the goal is to make it workable. To make it workable you need to make it real. To make it real you need the latest water science. If you read the last article I presented about megavolts electric fields on the surface water of DNA, the surface water on the DNA is very energized, Youneed to read the background I developed, that was moved to the speculations. In that background, I discuss how hydrogen bonds are binary, with both polar and covalent character. Like with computer memory, binary switches can be use to store and transmit information. The DNA is a solid chemically bonded structure that is very stable. When water attaches to this, the water is aligned to by solid structure, allowing persistence for the binary switches. Show me a reference that demonstrates a DNA double helix is bioactive without bonded water!

Say you were a scientist who was in their lab, engaged in experiments, for decades, which take up all your time; 24/7. You would be so preoccupied, that you may no longer be considered living life, in the figurative sense of smelling the roses. As you look back on your life, rather see a bunch of memorable happy and sad events, which make you who you are, decades may blur into one another, since although you did different experiments, all the days were sort of the same. A person on vacation, is enjoying the stimulation of the moment. This unique situation, is not lumped into a blur of routine. It stands out, in your memory, more than a routine. The birth of a child is more memorable than a year of day to day routine of caring for a baby for a year. If you were to try to remember, any given day of a routine, it will be hard to remember, unless there is a unique spin added to the routine on that day. This has to do with the way the brain creates and stores memory. Our brain is geared toward novelty or unique events; give the strongest memories. As events become routine, we get desensitized, and memory becomes weaker. History, in general, is written in terms of distinct unique events, like the birth of the universe. History is not about day-to day routine, but rather is about the unique. History takes advantage of the brain's capacity to reinforce novelty, more, in terms of our memory storage. History represents key events, that are unique in time and space. This is more connected to the conscious mind, and not the unconscious, since the unconscious mind records both. God's memory, if you assume omniscience, would be more than just the unique events of history. It would also include the routine events, not included in history books. The routine, although far less memorable, is often the precursor for the unique events. Collective behavior can create potential, such that unique change appears, which is then recorded as history. Hardly anybody saw Trump becoming president, a year and half ago, unless you watched the boring routines of life, and not just dwell on key events. It was not in the memorable events that caused Trump to be. But rather it was in the routines that appeared from these events. When change appears, those who only think in terms of chunks of life; history books, are caught off guard. It is like a star is born, which is memorable. It then goes billions of years burning fuel day after day, which is routine and not very memorable. This routine leads to depleting its fuel and then to a supernova, which is now historical. The routine burn, is what makes the supernova possible, yet this routine is not considered as important of the supernova, yet it can't exist without it.

I brought up the article, below, in my discuss of water and life at the nanoscale. I will bring it up again, because it shows things that will help to make the importance of water, for the activity of DNA, more clear cut. The water that is hydrogen bonded to the DNA; first two layers, generates substantial electric fields in order of 100 million volts that last about a femto-second. The DNA and water is a very energetic team. The DNA and water is not a passive situation. Water is more than a scaffolding that holds the DNA in the correct way to be bioactive. The reason is, the atomic composition and the shape of the DNA, and therefore the way the water hydrogen bonds to DNA, allows the water to form cooperative hydrogen bonding. What cooperative hydrogen bonding means is the elections of the surface water of DNA, are able to delocalize to form extended resonance, based on hydrogen bonding. The value of the cooperative hydrogen bonding, relative to the evolution of the DNA, is not all theoretical bases, base pairs and base precursors will allow the surface water to generate these high voltages. Most will inhibit, to various degrees, the extensive cooperative hydrogen bonding in the surface water. The cooperative hydrogen bonding on the DNA is a state of stability. I would guess the electric fields are due to the potential with the bulk water. The bulk water can also form cooperative structures, but as well as the water bonded to the DNA. There is constant discharge between, followed by the reestablishment of the cooperative on the DNA, since the water is fixed to the DNA. If the DNA was anything less than its modern based pairs, the discharge potential would disrupt the water cooperative on the surface of the DNA, for longer periods of time, if not all together. The result would be the DNA becomes more energized, so there is room for evolutionary change. But eventually, the DNA and water became the modern team; cooperative water on stable DNA.

Your going way off topic. I only answered your accusation, to be polite, and engage the audience. Your detour question was curious to me, because I figured a turtle would like to discuss water. You're not really a turtle, right? Statistics is a tool, and not a fact of reality. The tools offer a way to model reality, based on a random philosophy. This is the pitfall you and many others have fallen into. You assume the tool define reality. Statistics can be a very useful tool, when you don't understand something, but still need to explain it. If you are screening new medicines, the body is very complicated with many unknowns in terms of 3-D affects. You place the unknown details in a black box, and only look at input and outputs. This tool can be very useful for complicated situations. However, the utility of the tool, does not mean what is inside the black box is always random, just because the tool uses that assumption in all cases. Random is an assumption used by the tool. It would be much better to open the black box and look inside to find the reasons for why we get the output from the input. Just because a hammer is necessary to build a house, does not mean the house was designed around the assumptions of how a hammer works. I suppose their may be architects that build this way. The goddess Eris/Discordia is a way to describe those who assume the assumption of a tool defines reality. A tool is used for fabrication. This is way off topic, but relevant. We live in a quantum universe. What a quantum universe implies is the number of possible option is finite, or there are only a small set of possible outcomes, relative to all conjectured outcomes. Not all things are possible in a quantum universe. For example, there are only 5 energy levels for the hydrogen atom, each with specific energy, and not an endless number of states. The dice of the universe are heavily loaded; quantum universe. Life cannot form unless the chemicals that integrate are parts of the loaded dice; allowable quantum states. All these allowable pieces need to fit with other quanta, which further limits what is possible. Do a google image search for DNA. What you will see is the isolated DNA double helix, without the chemically bonded water. What is shown is not bioactive. That is not a valid quanta in terms of life. It is like assuming there is a 1.5 energy level for hydrogen. Water is part of the structure of the DNA and is needed to maintain the active conformation; right quanta. The amount of attached water will also determine whether the DNA is alpha or beta DNA; which quanta of DNA. Again I recognize the usefulness and utility of the statistical tool. The black box approach allows us to still do science when things are shrouded in mystery. We can keep moving forward until the tools evolve. Random is an assumption of the tool. This is useful because it maintains all the options and does not try to skimp. However, we live in a quantum universe where all options are not possible. There are only certain options, possible. If we knew nothing of the hydrogen atom, we could place hydrogen in the black box. We would then assume random, even though there are only five energy levels with each level having a very specific quantized energy. Those who directly and indirectly worship ERIS, will argue that all states are possible; have odds, and this would appear if we did enough experiments. If we did enough experiment, some states would be given very small but not zero odds. However, in a quantum universe zero odds is part of reality. Water is part of the genetic quanta.

Contemporary evolution is based on a random assumption of change on the DNA, followed by the logic of natural selection. I have no problem with the logic of natural selection, since it makes sense and can be observed and even predicted. However, I do have a problem with the random assumption that is based on DNA in a vacuum, where water is nothing but a solvent that can be ignored or replaced. That erroneous assumption is followed by the gods of gambling casinos; random assumptions, using the oracle of statistics. The question is how is this different from a random form of creationism? Where I differ, is I don't use either version of creationism; god or order or god of chaos. It does no matter to me if you define random as not a form of creationism, if it quacks it is a duck. Science is not covered under PC word games. Let me create a mythology. There where two goddess, who could both do anything and/or make anything happen. One goddess was ordered and could do most of the calculations in her head. After she pondered, it would produce integrated results. The other goddess could do the same things, but had not control over the creative process other than output results like a burp, without any forethought. Both goddess could create a universe. The first goddess would think, plan, and brood, and it would appear. The second goddess would belch to get a bunch of different results, until eventually, she could also make a universe. Followers of Discordianism, who venerate Eris the Greco-Roman goddess of chaos, have a strong belief in randomness and unpredictability. In discordian mythology, Aneris is described as the sister of Eris aka Discordia. Whereas Eris/Discordia is the Goddess of Disorder and Being, Aneris/Harmonia is the Goddess of Order and Non-Being.

Fossil fuels implies, that at one time, that the same carbon was not fixed, but was part of the earth's carbon cycle. The CO2 was sequestered by life, which then dies, decays to make fossil fuel. At one time all the fossil fuels, including what is still in the ground was part of the active carbon cycle of the earth. Life was still able to evolve and the earth was not destroyed. Sequestering the original high concentrations of CO2, by life, changed the planet. If we had been around when the CO2 was really high; before any fossil fuels had formed, and we saw life sequestering the carbon, the liberals would be afraid of that. They would correlate extremely high CO2 with what is supposed to be normal, while not taking into account earth's evolution base on life. Fossil fuels formed beginning about 300 million years ago accord to the DOE. The quote s from their web site. ​Below is CO2 and temperature data for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and Temperature, when the carbon cycle contain far more CO2 than today such as before any fossil fuels has formed. I expected much high temperatures based on the 100 year computer models. If we burnt all the fossil fuels in the earth global temperature will peak at 25C. This same temperature was reached even with 250 million years of carbon sequestered and stored as fossil fuels. How is that possible using the current logic? I also don't understand how CO2 went down from 175 million year ago until 100,000 year ago yet the temperature went up to the same levels before fossil fuels?

Didn't Donna Brazile give Hillary Clinton questions ahead of one of the debates with Trump. Now has;t she been rewarded for being lawless? She was promoted to the head of the DNC; head scoundrel. If a distinction between lawful and lawless mattered to the Democrats and Liberals, this would not be the case. It looks bad along that dividing line, of lawful and lawless. But it does not look bad, if you can merge lawful and lawlessness into confusion, based on race or sex. The reason this divides people is because deep down people are good, but they are force to compensate for the evil they accept, because of their affiliation with the left. The DNC has used PC word games to make it harder to reach their base. There are good people, who are misled by the scoundrels. The games are so unnatural to common sense this has impacted the ability to cope. The Russian hack of the DNA is the story and not the fact that two faces of the Democrats were exposed and led to the downfall of Hillary. The left does not see themselves as doing anything wrong, since two faces and the merger of lawlessness with lawful is normal to them. The ends justify the means even if lawless. Trump continues to say the things the base are trained to fear, until they can get used to it. It is like going to the beach in the late spring. After the winter the bathing suits can be very stimulating. But as the season goes on, the same bathing suits become another day. Once it is easier to cope and the college kids are not running and hiding, from the bogeyman, then they can be reached.

The above quote is from the Martin Chaplin web site about Water structure and chemistry. The links should work if you need references for the various claims in the quote. The quote shows how the conformation of the DNA is dependent on the amount of hydrating water. This water is chemically bonded to the DNA and is part of the structure. The predominant natural DNA, or beta DNA, used by most cells, has the most chemically bonded water. Water can form up to four hydrogen bonds; two receivers and two acceptors. When water hydrogen bonds to the DNA, it has up to three hydrogen bonds left over to bond with other water. The water, has to bond to other water, in predefined way, due to the way the bonding orbitals are optimized; tetrahedral. The result is the water bonded to the DNA and the to the next layer of bulk water, becomes sort of a scaffolding for the DNA, inducing and holding the DNA into a given conformation, based on how much water is present. The water also has a dynamic aspect, like the parent who holds the child while they drive the bike. If the parent was to let go; DNA in a vacuum, the child falls to the ground. Below is scaffolding around the capital so work can be done, efficiently. The workers are like the enzymes that use the scaffolding to locate and use the templates.