[puppypower (OP)]

Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active.

No

What you said was correct;

Well, I guess that makes one of us.

Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors.

Not really; ethylene glycol has them too.

Water has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors but no extra electron releasing groups; -CH. Ethylene glycol is not a good solvent for life. Hydrogen bonding forms between hydrogen and highly electronegative atoms like oxygen and nitrogen. The electron releasing groups of ethylene glycol modify the affective electronegativity of its oxygen. A difference appears compared to water. 

If you look at water, it has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom; H2O. Oxygen is unique in that it can form oxide, allowing the oxygen to hold two more electrons than it has nuclear protons. This imbalance in the ratio of positive to negative charge tells us that electrostatic considerations, alone, cannot explain oxygen and oxide, since, on paper, oxide has too many electrons to balance charge, yet oxide is very stable. We need to add something else to tell the whole story of oxygen, and all the other highly electronegative atoms.

The two extra electrons of oxide would be stable if they were attracted to oxygen, not by electrostatic means, but by magnetic mean. An electron in motion creates a magnetic field. This is the second half of the EM force, with oxygen making more use of magnetism. Oxygen is why the hydrogen bonding of water shows both polar; electrostatic and covalent; magnetic attributes.  The affect does not come from the hydrogen, even if the hydrogen bond is named after it; unintentional misdirect. Hydrogen can accommodate the electrons of oxygen as is needed. When hydrogen share between two water molecules the two oxygen are tweaking their ratios of electrostatic and magnetic affects at difference positions, with the hydrogen making this easier.

The binary nature of hydrogen bonding water is led by a donor affect; oxygen. Ethylene glycol can form hydrogen bonds, but it has a different binary switch ratio; polar to covalent, then does water, due to the electron releasing groups ,of ethylene glycol, attached to the oxygen. This makes it unlikely to be as good a solvent for life. The information signals have less bandwidth.

Hydrogen is the primary material of the universe, based on mass. What makes most of the hydrogen of the universe unique is that, conceptually, isolated hydrogen proton has never been used and abused by the nuclear forces; irreversible way. To become deuterium, tritium or part of any higher atom from helium on up, hydrogen protons needs to interact via the nuclear forces. But as an isolated proton, it is still virgin to this, and has only been influenced by gravity and the EM forces, as a first approximation. Any affects; enthalpy and entropy changes, associated with nuclear forces and the formation of higher atoms is still stored within the virgin hydrogen proton.

Where this comes in handy is connected to the donor electrons associated with hydrogen bonding. Electrons have been found to be elementary particles. This means they are singular things that cannot be broken down any further. However, they show both negative change and mass, even though they are one thing.

This paradox means within the electron, its mass and negative charge are unified, and are interchangeable allowing the electron to be one thing at any conditions. We cannot break the electron down into two things; mass and charge particles. These two things have to be part of one thing, at at a very base level. Science is not ready for this important change in the conservation of charge and mass. 

The analogy is the hydrogen bond but has two attributes; polar and covalent, but it is still one bond. The polar and covalent attributes of the hydrogen bond are able to change into each other, with a range of affects. But at the chemical level, this is still a hydrogen bond, either way.

The hydrogen bond, which is driven by the donor, such as oxygen, implies that the electrons, interacts via an aspect of the unified force; charge and mass, with hydrogen protons, that contain the extra free energy compared to the rest of the atomic states of the universe. The electron unifies negative charge with mass and then interacts with virgin protons that have only seen EM force and gravity. Is this important?

The proton is not a unified particle, but rather it can be broken down further. It does not have a direct connection to the unified force of the electron. The net affect is that within hydrogen bonding is sort of a communication breakdown, at some level, which allows the electrons and protons of hydrogen bonds to partially ignore each other; two inter-connected but semi-autonomous affects. Cells have stable materials that are very sturdy, as well as many transient affects that are hard to pin down and measure. For example, if the electron shift its charge to mass ratio, even slightly, the proton remains with a single change having to react to a partial charge. One can get some weird affects that look like statistical magic.

 

[Origin]

Another lengthy post of mostly word salad.

Electrons have been found to be elementary particles. This means they are singular things that cannot be broken down any further.

I think we should take this as a win, in that you changed your mind about electrons being composite particles.  Who knows, in a few decades we may be able bring you up to speed on basic science!

[Bored chemist]

Ethylene glycol is not a good solvent for life.

And that simple fact destroys your idea that a molecule having two sets of lone pair acceptors and donors is important.

That's why I pointed it out...

[Bored chemist]

Oxygen is unique in that it can form oxide,

A hippopotamus is unique in that it can form baby hippos.

So what?
Everything is unique.
On the other hand, oxygen is part of a group.
Oxygen is one of the chalcogens which form chalcogenides

[Colin2B]

@puppypower
You are making a habit of posting long, irrelevant monologues in other people’s topics.
Please stop or you will be limited to your own posts only.
Thank you

[puppypower (OP)]

First of all I did not start this post, even if I am given credit for some reason. In the same token, most of the criticisms in this new created topic do not answer evolution or the deniers, either. Why the dual standard? They defend the status quo, but do not address extra concerns about water and hydrogen bonding which are everywhere in all aspects of life. 

This reminds me of a a recent situation where I could not get my password to work on another site; debate politics. I tries to rest the password, but for some reason, it reset onto a secondary account, that was against the rules. This was used as an excuse to silence my observations. I must be a threat to someone who can game system: political left. If I disappear from here, is not of my making. Maybe I am paranoid but the pattern was the same.

My long post, that inspired this topic, attributed to me, tried to address the fundamentals of evolution in terms of unique hydrogen bonding and water considerations. The only problem was these ideas are not a major part of the status quo theory of evolution. I was showing how contemporary evolution falls short by ignoring valid considerations connected to water. Rolling dice does not make this shortfall any better. I addressed the shortfall of current evolutionary theory and the deniers who sense this.

One of the main practical reasons the current science version of evolution does not take into account all the nuances of water and hydrogen bonding, is because in situ water and hydrogen bonding experiments, are an order of magnitude harder to run than organic centric experiments. With organic experiments, one can see changes in chemicals that will linger, due to changes in covalent bonds. You can see input and output due to stable products and reactants. We can feed a cell glucose, see the concentration go down and new products appears.

With water and hydrogen bonds, changes that occur often leave no permanent trace, since water does not change in any drastic way. Water will remain water. While the polar and covalent nature of hydrogen bonding is still considered the same secondary bond either way. It is much harder to black box the water and hydrogen bonds for statistical models, since input and output do not typically reflect permanent changes that are as easy to see. This is outside the scope of the existing models. One needs to pretend it does not exist, based on a philosophy of science technicality. One can see the DNA under the microscope, but a single water molecule bridging a base pair, in the dynamic environment of the cell, is not an easy experiment. The hydrogen bonding is not sitting still for a good posed photo.

I am not a pure empiricist and need to see to believe. I believe that life is governed by rational principles. This is not Creationism, although any logical model is a more intelligently design than dice based models. Dice based models have built in fudge factors, to make half baked look better than it actually is. Rational models are all or not. One bad bad dada point can kill the model.With statical model 9 out of 10 bad date off the curve is sometimes good enough. The cheat method is preferred, since it makes it easier to appear smart.

A logical approach to life allows me to extrapolate the hard to measure, from other basic observations so I can infer extrapolated dynamics. This may look like magic to the statistical empiricists, who eyes have to engage before their brains and the fudge needs to be spread thick toto make it look better.  But my logical results are the product of looking under every rock; brain first, until all the ducks appear in a row. I move around for a reason. Biology is more than just life, it also chemistry and physics.

For example, I made the profound observation that the hydrogen proton, which is common to water, reduced organics of life, and most hydrogen bonding, has never, for all practical purposes, reacted via the nuclear forces. It has never lowered its primal potential from the early universe, via the two nuclear forces. Its existence, since it was created, has been connected to only the EM force and gravity. This is different from deuterium, tritium, helium and protons and all higher atoms. This makes the hydrogen proton a unique and singular state of atomic matter, with slightly different internal potential. Just because this is not a part of the current traditions, does not take away from its common sense logic. I saw what nobody else saw. I do this all the time, because I am not limited by the limitations of empirical traditions. There are plenty of beepers to do that.

The half baked evolutionary theory of the status quo, which ignores the many attributes of water and hydrogen bonding, in all cellular dynamics, appears to always be in damage control mode, unable and unwilling to see any advances in thinking. You guys never seen to address the new science other than circle the wagons and fire poison arrows. This site is called naked science, while you prefer to dress the evolutionary pig with lipstick, hoping nobody will notice the chap lips. Wipe off the lipstick and address the chap. 

Another important point I made, which I made before, is how the electron is a single particle that is stilled taught as having two distinct attributes; negative charge and rest mass. How does tradition this resolve the paradox of a single particle electron? I suggested that the solution is that the single particle electron demonstrates the unification of the EM force; negative charge, and gravity; mass. The result is a single unified force behind a singular particle. Particle collider experiments do not show two things; separated mass and separate charge, but a single affect that remains unified under all conditions. 

I do understand that this simple common sense will open a can of worms, which everyone seems  more interested in avoiding. Nobody wishes to retool, even for the better. The ripple affect goes everywhere in physics, chemistry, biology and evolution.

Say for the sake of argument, the negative charge of the electron and its mass were integrated by an aspect of a unified force; gravity and EM force become one. Say we modeled the electron, as we do, as two things that are not connected and unified. The result will be the students being taught to remain stuck in the POV of cards and dice, to explain differences that seems to be everywhere.

[Bored chemist]

most of the criticisms in this new created topic do not answer evolution or the deniers, either.

That's the point.
Your irrelevant bull has been taken out of the thread it was polluting- along with the comments on your rubbish.
This means that the original thread is better (and this one is dross)

[Bored chemist]

My long post, that inspired this topic, attributed to me, tried to address the fundamentals of

... irrelevant hogwash.

[Origin]

This reminds me of a a recent situation where I could not get my password to work on another site; debate politics. I tries to rest the password, but for some reason, it reset onto a secondary account, that was against the rules. This was used as an excuse to silence my observations. I must be a threat to someone who can game system: political left.

Maybe they just got tired of your rambling inaccurate posts. 

If I disappear from here, is not of my making.  Maybe I am paranoid but the pattern was the same.[/quote
I don't think you are paranoid, I think the pattern is there.  You make long rambling posts with outlandish claims, the mods warn you to stop your silliness and you double down on your crazy posts.  This cycle goes on a little while and then the mods get fed up and ban you.  I have seen that happen to you on a couple other science sites.  The mods here give a lot of leeway on pseudoscience but even they have limits.  Personally, I think banning you would improve this site.

[Origin]

This reminds me of a a recent situation where I could not get my password to work on another site; debate politics. I tries to rest the password, but for some reason, it reset onto a secondary account, that was against the rules. This was used as an excuse to silence my observations. I must be a threat to someone who can game system: political left.

Maybe they just got tired of your rambling inaccurate posts. 

If I disappear from here, is not of my making.  Maybe I am paranoid but the pattern was the same.

I don't think you are paranoid, I think the pattern is there.  You make long rambling posts with outlandish claims, the mods warn you to stop your silliness and you double down on your crazy posts.  This cycle goes on a little while and then the mods get fed up and ban you.  I have seen that happen to you on a couple other science sites.  The mods here give a lot of leeway on pseudoscience but even they have limits.  Personally, I think banning you would improve this site.

[Bored chemist]

Personally, I think banning you would improve this site.

I can't think of a valid counter- argument.
Can anyone else?