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 That is obsolete science, that your have memorized as dogma science.
My memory is of your posting here and indeed you repeat the same bias and behavior. Invoking chemistry does not make it about chemistry.
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.
There you go hiding behind misdirection again. Craig brought up homeopathy and I discounted it as your tune. It's not my argument and never was.
More misrepresentation. Soooo dishonest! The science of genetics is in its infancy and declaring it invalid as a whole is as ludicrous as declaring a toddler not a human just because you can't predict what the child will grow up to be and do.
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.
And again you misrepresent science. Science is no more creationism than you are brave.
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.
More deceit, but at least you make a veiled admission that all this is about god for you, and not about chemistry. You start with the assumption of a god and then do your damndest to clothe it in flashy garb that disguise.
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.
And here we find more deceit and cowardice raises her ugly head again. Science is never complete and you never lay out your 'model'.
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[sic], 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.
Good grief! No one is claiming that water does not accompany life. Just another of your lies of misdirection. You use chemistry as a disguise for your theistic beliefs because you are a chemist; if you were a geologist you would use geology, if a linguist, language, if a yada yada yada, pseudoscience up the wazzoo.
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!