This is not a new theory, but an observation by Chemist, J.G. Watterson. Statistical methods predict an average protein fold, due to the assumptions of thermal energy and vibrations in solution. But as far back as 50 years ago, it was shown that many proteins will fold with exact folds. Exact folds will have a probability of 1.0. This have little to do with statistics, yet there is no statistical explanation or addendum to address this. My question was a polite way of asking, why is this problem, being hidden in the closet for so long? Why does the statical model get a free ride?
My theory is statistics is a powerful tool that relies on certain assumptions; rules for swinging the hammer. The tool has worked out so well, that many started to assume the assumptions of the tool, reflect the assumptions of reality, and not just the parameters of using the tool. The result is the tail wagging the dog; tool defines reality. The observation of protein folds points out that the assumptions of the tool; tail, is wagging the dog; reality. I thought that science is supposed to evolve when observation requires it.
Maybe a new assumption of the tool can be; reality has situations, like protein folding, that are rational and not defined by statistics. However, to use the tool, we need to ignore these exceptions and assume even they are random. This will make it easier to swing the hammer. Is this already the unwritten assumption?