Life And Water

[Moontanman]

I didn't bother listing the anomalies because I was trying not to divert the discussion. This is biology and not physical chemistry. Here is a link: My link

 

The link discusses 67 anomalies. These are the explained anomalies. There are also a few unexplained anomalies.

 

Turtle gave a good example of what Pincho was talking about. Science forums have distracting elements pretending to be knowledgeable of science. There is no burden of proof on the science critic and they can attack you as a creationist. If I held out this link and continued to claim its the truth was true, I might get expelled. Blind leading the blind. Maybe the staff can address this issue or the unrestrained critic or is that company policy? Is Turtle one of the science forum bouncers?

 

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

 

Footnotes

a Whether or not the properties of water are seen to be anomalous depends upon the materials used in the comparison and the interpretation of the term 'anomalous'. For example, it could well be argued that water possesses exactly those properties that one might deduce from its structure (see for example, [402]). Other tetrahedrally interacting liquids, such as liquid Si, SiO2 and BeF2 have many similar 'anomalies', as do other materials where mixed phases may arise, such as liquid Te [1538]. Comparisons between water, liquid sodium, argon and benzene appear to Franks [112] to indicate several of the properties given above as not being anomalous. However, these materials are perhaps not the most typical of liquids. My list gives the unusual properties generally understood to make liquid water (and ice) stand out from 'typical' liquids (or solids). See [242] for a review concentrating on the non-anomalous properties of water; that is, those that are the 'same' as for other liquids. At higher temperatures (>315 K) the thermodynamic properties of water may be considered close to 'normal' for a liquid [1638]. [back]

 

HB, seriously, water has unique properties as do all other elements. If life had evolved in HF instead of H2O you would think HF was the most unique liquid possible. We have only one data point, impossible to make a judgement call with that limitation.

[HydrogenBond]

Showing data and proof is not a one way street, that is only applicable to those who dare to differ. Maybe someone can show us proof that another solvent can be used to create life, If not, will this be in violation of the site rules for proof? In my experience there is a dual standard. If you support the status quo, there are a different set of rules. Nobody required proof for that claim but just let it slide without question, as t hough it had been prove

 

The entire argument of other solvents or the uniqueness of water cuts to the heart of the validity of one basic assumption of a statistical mechanical approach for life. The organics of biology are complicated enough so water as the solvent, is assumed to be inert. If we assume other solvents are possible for life, even without proof, this appears to supports that premise. The laws of scientific proof are waived since the ends justify the means. If we make water unique to life, like I claim, with water very anomalous, the inert water assumption is not valid. What is the proof other solvents can work? If the inert assumption of the solvent is invalid, does the statistical mechanical approach become pseudo-science or is it grandfathered in?

 

Life on earth evolved within water. I am not sure how I am suppose to prove that other than with common sense. If you don't want to accept that or wish to set up a diversion and smoke screen, there is no amount of proof that will even be acceptable.

 

If we assume life evolved in water, the organics of life will need to conform to the various conditions created by water. For example, if we mix oil and water they will separate. There is not much life can do about this fact of nature other than conform. This constraint sets a sense of logical direction that eliminates some paths. For example, if replicators only had genes that make hydrophobic proteins, water will cause a phase separation. This would also eliminate a genetic material that is too hydrophobic, if water is the solvent. Hydrophilic proteins and genetic materials will better dissolve in water allowing the bio-materials to spread out. Each path in water will create advantages and disadvantages but both are defined by conditions set by water.

 

Water is very anomalous, such that water-oil separation is not the only aqueous constraint. There are preferred paths.

Edited April 27, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

Showing data and proof is not a one way street, that is only applicable to those who dare to differ. Maybe someone can show us proof that another solvent can be used to create life, If not, will this be in violation of the site rules for proof? In my experience there is a dual standard. If you support the status quo, there are a different set of rules. Nobody required proof for that claim but just let it slide without question, as t hough it had been prove

 

The entire argument of other solvents or the uniqueness of water cuts to the heart of the validity of one basic assumption of a statistical mechanical approach for life. The organics of biology are complicated enough so water as the solvent, is assumed to be inert. If we assume other solvents are possible for life, even without proof, this appears to supports that premise. The laws of scientific proof are waived since the ends justify the means. If we make water unique to life, like I claim, with water very anomalous, the inert water assumption is not valid. What is the proof other solvents can work? If the inert assumption of the solvent is invalid, does the statistical mechanical approach become pseudo-science or is it grandfathered in?

 

Life on earth evolved within water. I am not sure how I am suppose to prove that other than with common sense. If you don't want to accept that or wish to set up a diversion and smoke screen, there is no amount of proof that will even be acceptable.

 

If we assume life evolved in water, the organics of life will need to conform to the various conditions created by water. For example, if we mix oil and water they will separate. There is not much life can do about this fact of nature other than conform. This constraint sets a sense of logical direction that eliminates some paths. For example, if replicators only had genes that make hydrophobic proteins, water will cause a phase separation. This would also eliminate a genetic material that is too hydrophobic, if water is the solvent. Hydrophilic proteins and genetic materials will better dissolve in water allowing the bio-materials to spread out. Each path in water will create advantages and disadvantages but both are defined by conditions set by water.

 

Water is very anomalous, such that water-oil separation is not the only aqueous constraint. There are preferred paths.

 

regardless of what you think about our rules, you have to follow them or suffer the consequences. you continue to lie about your purpose in posting this topic, let alone each and every one of your posts. show some honesty and admit this is about creationism. i can and will challenge your each and every post in this manner.

[Moontanman]

Showing data and proof is not a one way street, that is only applicable to those who dare to differ. Maybe someone can show us proof that another solvent can be used to create life, If not, will this be in violation of the site rules for proof? In my experience there is a dual standard. If you support the status quo, there are a different set of rules. Nobody required proof for that claim but just let it slide without question, as t hough it had been prove

 

The entire argument of other solvents or the uniqueness of water cuts to the heart of the validity of one basic assumption of a statistical mechanical approach for life. The organics of biology are complicated enough so water as the solvent, is assumed to be inert. If we assume other solvents are possible for life, even without proof, this appears to supports that premise. The laws of scientific proof are waived since the ends justify the means. If we make water unique to life, like I claim, with water very anomalous, the inert water assumption is not valid. What is the proof other solvents can work? If the inert assumption of the solvent is invalid, does the statistical mechanical approach become pseudo-science or is it grandfathered in?

 

Life on earth evolved within water. I am not sure how I am suppose to prove that other than with common sense. If you don't want to accept that or wish to set up a diversion and smoke screen, there is no amount of proof that will even be acceptable.

 

If we assume life evolved in water, the organics of life will need to conform to the various conditions created by water. For example, if we mix oil and water they will separate. There is not much life can do about this fact of nature other than conform. This constraint sets a sense of logical direction that eliminates some paths. For example, if replicators only had genes that make hydrophobic proteins, water will cause a phase separation. This would also eliminate a genetic material that is too hydrophobic, if water is the solvent. Hydrophilic proteins and genetic materials will better dissolve in water allowing the bio-materials to spread out. Each path in water will create advantages and disadvantages but both are defined by conditions set by water.

 

Water is very anomalous, such that water-oil separation is not the only aqueous constraint. There are preferred paths.

 

 

HB, you realize that not only are you agreeing with what I said you are also simply stating facts that cannot be proven in any way. Life as we know it is adapted to water, it evolved in water, life has exploited water in every way possible. Much like a pothole that thinks it's the exact shape for the water that fills it. As far as we know all life in the universe is carbon based and uses water as a solvent, that is simply the only data point we have. All of the things you say is unique to water does not mean that life could only have evolved to fit water or that water perfectly fits life.

 

Other solvents are possible but most suffer from rarity or extreme cold in their liquid phase. NH3 has lots of things going for it as a life solvent, it is common, polar, it dissolves iron and other metal better than water and some models predict that fact that it sinks when frozen as a plus not a minus.

 

Liquid methane or ethane methane mix would be good at dissolving pseudo silicon organics like SH4. there are many other possibilities but that are at this point completely speculation but they do point to the possibility of life no like we know.

 

Boron nitride based life is a remote possibility and here are some more.

 

Over view.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

 

Specifics

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/boron-based_life.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/phosphorus-based_life.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/siliconlife.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hydrogenperoxide.html#H2O2

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/nitrogen-based_life.html

[Turtle]

HB, you realize that ...

 

moontan, you do realize hb will not, and never has, given an honest response to any inquiry about his posted "information"? that's rhetorical of course as i know perfectly well that you know what hb is about. what i don't understand is why you continue to post such genuine questions and rebuttals when you know perfectly well you are not going to get a genuine reply. why is that moontan?

[Moontanman]

moontan, you do realize hb will not, and never has, given an honest response to any inquiry about his posted "information"? that's rhetorical of course as i know perfectly well that you know what hb is about. what i don't understand is why you continue to post such genuine questions and rebuttals when you know perfectly well you are not going to get a genuine reply. why is that moontan?

 

 

Mostly for people who come after who read these posts and I feel the need to show HB is wrong instead of just letting him make meaningless claims that go unchallenged.

[Turtle]

Mostly for people who come after who read these posts and I feel the need to show HB is wrong instead of just letting him make meaningless claims that go unchallenged.

 

oh. well, the way i see it, all it does is to perpetuate the meaningless claims and lying about the true agenda, which is of course to denegrate science and our forum while promoting a religious and per se theistic opinion. have you bothered to challenge this by reporting it? but, whatever. :shrug:

[HydrogenBond]

How about sticking to science to refute my claims. Turtle, I assumed you were competent enough to use science to refute me. So why do you degenerate to name calling and subjectively poisoning the well. Was I wrong about your ability? You have yet to show everyone anything but an irrational bias against me, even when I am right I am wrong in your eyes. You were not even aware water had anomalies. That was so elementary to my knowledge of water, was not aware of your lack of exposure. Bit once schooled you continued to act like an irrational bigot.

 

I will present another idea and we will test Turtle's capacity to recognize science or act like an irrational bigot. Maybe someone on the staff can act as ref. This will show all who is credible and who is full of crap. Turtle is projecting himself; agenda driven, lack of science, irrational attacks.

 

I also understand that all these delays and distractions make it harder to stick to topic and waste time; agenda driven.

[Turtle]

How about sticking to science to refute my claims. ...

i did just that at the git-go. you ignored it. how about admitting you are promoting creationism?

[HydrogenBond]

I view the symbols of Bible Creation as connected to the evolution of modern human consciousness. To me the symbols reflect the transition from pre-human (human DNA but a natural mind) to when humans became ripe for civilization (still human DNA but a new modern human mind).

 

To me biological evolution is a separate matter. I am considered as much a rebel in religion as in science, since I think on my own. My opinion is water and organics both contributed to evolution on earth, with natural potentials within the water, setting constraints for the organics.

 

For example, phospholipids in water forms a bilayer membrane. This shape is not random or based on statistics, but is defined by the interaction of water with lipids; surface tension and energy; In that respect, I differ from existing evolutionary theory in that I look for aqueous cause and effect which places limits on random assumptions.

 

I talked about oil and water and how these phase separate. This is not random but based on energetics. As life evolves the oil-water effect is always in affect and will place limits in terms of shapes, placement and composition. Proteins place hydrophobic moieties inside and hydrophilic outside. This is not random but again is defined because of the interaction of water and organics.

 

If life evolved in water and water is based on hydrogen bonding, life would naturally be based on hydrogen bonding, too. This is not random but is based on chemical potentials created by water, with organics following suit. This is my position.

[Turtle]

I view the symbols of Bible Creation as connected to the evolution of modern human consciousness.

 

in other words, i am correct in my charge(s) that you are promoting creationsm here. moreover, i am correct in my charge that you been dissembling, i.e. lying, about your agenda.

 

...

I am considered as much a rebel in religion as in science, since I think on my own. My opinion blah blah blah...

 

so in other words, you are an intentional & knowing troublemaker here. again, just as i have charged. you give no legitimate support, contrary to our rules, because none exists. my what a fine example of a good-intentioned man you are. good grief.

[HydrogenBond]

in other words, i am correct in my charge(s) that you are promoting creationsm here. moreover, i am correct in my charge that you been dissembling, i.e. lying, about your agenda.

 

This biology topic has nothing to do with the evolution of the human mind, so your creation inference is erroneous. I said biological evolution is another matter. I also said where I differ is I give water equal weight to the organics.

 

so in other words, you are an intentional & knowing troublemaker here. again, just as i have charged. you give no legitimate support, contrary to our rules, because none exists. my what a fine example of a good-intentioned man you are. good grief.

 

I did not say i was a rebel but rather considered a rebel by people who misrepresent.

I notice you stuck to political games and did not address any of the technical things I mentioned. Those are OK?

Edited April 27, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[CraigD]

Showing data and proof is not a one way street, that is only applicable to those who dare to differ.

I don’t believe you’re being criticized for “daring to differ”, but mostly for making vague claims you don’t support, or support by linking to references that don’t actually address or support them.

 

Maybe someone can show us proof that another solvent can be used to create life ...

“Create life” seems a poor term to use here, as it could mean anything from sustaining the metabolism of a cell to permitting a cell to divide to creating a living organism an atom at a time from elements to biogenesis. It also has religious overtones, which, as some people suspect you of being religiously motivated, I think you’d do better to avoid.

 

The question of whether DNA and/or RNA based life, or some other kind, can exist other than in water, however, is a very interesting one. A naïve google search for “non-water based life” turns up some references that seem to say “yes”, such as the 2007 Astrobiology magazine article Life in Asphalt. However, despite the article’s statement

Moreover, these bacteria survive with no water and little or no oxygen.

I’m unsure if it’s intended to assert that a bacterium can survive with no water within, or just with no water surrounding its cell.

 

This thread’s first post stated

No enzymes will work without water. Even the DNA needs to be hydrated at least 30%, to form its active shape.

I can’t support this claim, but suspect it’s approximately true.

 

What’s your source for it, HBond :QuestionM

 

If, as a naive reading of Life in Asphalt suggests, DNA-based life can actually exists in water-less hydrocarbon solvents, the question of whether life as we have observed it requires water appears clearly answered. As I noted above, however, I’m suspicious that the article isn’t really saying this.

 

Some deeper research is clearly needed. A link to what prompted you to make your “at least 30%” claim would be a helpful start. Some determined digging for the details of stories like Life in Asphalt would be even moreso – and, I’ll add, be far more sympathetically received than any complaints about the application of our site rules.

 

biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics and martin chaplin is a pseudo-scientific crackpot*

...

*Martin Chaplin pseudoscience @ Google

I completely agree with you that biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but think you mischaracterize Martin Chaplin. He’s a well-educated biochemist with bona fides from respected schools. A google search of his name and “pseudoscience” doesn’t do him justice, I think, as from what I’ve read, he’s often a strong critic of pseudoscience. His criticism of how other scientists attack pseudoscientists may, and this being taken as a defense of pseudoscience, has confused his reputation somewhat, and I get the impression, from writings of his such as Homeopathy, and Memory of Water, that he privately wishes that some pseudoscientific ideas to be elevated from the realm of pseudoscience to that of legitimate science, but he appears to me to “play by the rules” of legitimate science, refusing to accept what can’t be theoretically explained and experimentally verified.

 

… and you are a dissembling creationsit troll and this is a science site and i am a bouncer. you are correct that if you were truthful you would be expelled. you would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

That’s just plainly uncouth!

 

HBond may be a creationist troll. It’s been my experience that he does dissemble, and flaunts our rules enough that we’ve had to ban him a few times. But if he follows the rule (and it’s my and other mods’ business to make sure he does!), some fun and learning can come out of this thread.

 

Of course, some fun can come out of just letting the brawl grow and continue, but not, I think, much learning of the scientific kind. To quote Moontanman’s signature: “Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it”.

 

So, everyone, please, stick to the science.

[Turtle]

biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics and martin chaplin is a pseudo-scientific crackpot* and you are a dissembling creationsit troll and this is a science site and i am a bouncer.

*Martin Chaplin pseudoscience @ Google

Wonky Water weirdness and quackery: Junk Science in the Marketplace

 

I completely agree with you that biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but think you mischaracterize Martin Chaplin. He’s a well-educated biochemist with bona fides from respected schools. A google search of his name and “pseudoscience” doesn’t do him justice, I think, as from what I’ve read, he’s often a strong critic of pseudoscience. His criticism of how other scientists attack pseudoscientists may, and this being taken as a defense of pseudoscience, has confused his reputation somewhat, and I get the impression, from writings of his such as Homeopathy, and Memory of Water, that he privately wishes that some pseudoscientific ideas to be elevated from the realm of pseudoscience to that of legitimate science, but he appears to me to “play by the rules” of legitimate science, refusing to accept what can’t be theoretically explained and experimentally verified.

 

first, hbond introduced chaplin in support of pseudo-science. second, that seems to be a common occurence on the web. moreover, you seem to have a different opinion of homeopathy in a discussion on that topic when you describe it as related, if not reliant, on spiritual belief.

 

 

...

With the discovery and widespread acceptance of the size of atoms and molecules in the mid to late 19th century, it became apparent that an explanation for how homeopathic medicines worked in the absence of any of their active ingredient was necessary. Because much homeopathic writing already referred to and distinguished between the physical and “spiritual” presence of substances, 19th century homeopaths appear to have favored the explanation that, even if all the molecules of a substance were removed, the substances spirit (or “vital force”) could remain and have an effect.

 

As acceptance of the objective reality of spirits has decreased, some homeopaths have explained how homeopathic medicines work without containing any of their active ingredient by suggesting that the liquid (usually water) used to dilute them is chemically altered by contact with the active ingredient, and in turn chemically alters water that comes in contact with it.

 

In my experience, very few clinicians accept either the spirit of the “contact impression” explanations. However, because typical homeopathic medicines, being chemically indistinguishable from pure water, can’t hurt patients, they feel it is at worst harmless and possibly helpful to condone or recommend them. Understanding that patient morale can be an important factor in recovering from disease, clinicians are reluctant to discourage patients’ belief in the efficacy of remedies that can do no harm, and may improve their morale. The role of a clinician is, IMHO, to treat disease, not promote science, so I’m sympathetic to this approach. ...

 

 

you are correct that if you were truthful you would be expelled. you would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

 

That’s just plainly uncouth!

 

uncouth

1. Crude; unrefined.

2. Awkward or clumsy; ungraceful.

3. Archaic Foreign; unfamiliar.

 

no doubt the sense you mean 'uncouth' in is #1. nonetheless, my mother used to use the phrase when she caught us children lying when the truth was there for all to see. plain as the noses on our faces. in that sense, my use of it may indeed be archaic and unfamiliar.

 

HBond may be a creationist troll. It’s been my experience that he does dissemble, and flaunts our rules enough that we’ve had to ban him a few times. But if he follows the rule (and it’s my and other mods’ business to make sure he does!), some fun and learning can come out of this thread.

 

Of course, some fun can come out of just letting the brawl grow and continue, but not, I think, much learning of the scientific kind. To quote Moontanman’s signature: “Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it”.

 

this is what i just don't get. how you and the other moderators in the full knowledge of hbonds ongoing troublemaking do little to nothing about it. i'm reminded of the current TV show What would You Do?, whose central message is that most people don't do the right thing even when it's obvious there's a wrong going on right in front of them.

 

you think this is fun!? and yet, you scold me? good grief. i'll point out that as i earlier responded to moontan's pop-in here, it seems to me he is not following his own stricture.

 

So, everyone, please, stick to the science.

 

this thread was never about science except to denegrate it. no less is it true for virtually all hbond's posts. it's as plain as the noses on our our faces.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Turtle

[Moontanman]

I don’t believe you’re being criticized for “daring to differ”, but mostly for making vague claims you don’t support, or support by linking to references that don’t actually address or support them.

 

 

“Create life” seems a poor term to use here, as it could mean anything from sustaining the metabolism of a cell to permitting a cell to divide to creating a living organism an atom at a time from elements to biogenesis. It also has religious overtones, which, as some people suspect you of being religiously motivated, I think you’d do better to avoid.

 

The question of whether DNA and/or RNA based life, or some other kind, can exist other than in water, however, is a very interesting one. A naïve google search for “non-water based life” turns up some references that seem to say “yes”, such as the 2007 Astrobiology magazine article Life in Asphalt. However, despite the article’s statement

Moreover, these bacteria survive with no water and little or no oxygen.

I’m unsure if it’s intended to assert that a bacterium can survive with no water within, or just with no water surrounding its cell.

 

This thread’s first post stated

 

I can’t support this claim, but suspect it’s approximately true.

 

What’s your source for it, HBond :QuestionM

 

If, as a naive reading of Life in Asphalt suggests, DNA-based life can actually exists in water-less hydrocarbon solvents, the question of whether life as we have observed it requires water appears clearly answered. As I noted above, however, I’m suspicious that the article isn’t really saying this.

 

Some deeper research is clearly needed. A link to what prompted you to make your “at least 30%” claim would be a helpful start. Some determined digging for the details of stories like Life in Asphalt would be even moreso – and, I’ll add, be far more sympathetically received than any complaints about the application of our site rules.

 

 

I completely agree with you that biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but think you mischaracterize Martin Chaplin. He’s a well-educated biochemist with bona fides from respected schools. A google search of his name and “pseudoscience” doesn’t do him justice, I think, as from what I’ve read, he’s often a strong critic of pseudoscience. His criticism of how other scientists attack pseudoscientists may, and this being taken as a defense of pseudoscience, has confused his reputation somewhat, and I get the impression, from writings of his such as Homeopathy, and Memory of Water, that he privately wishes that some pseudoscientific ideas to be elevated from the realm of pseudoscience to that of legitimate science, but he appears to me to “play by the rules” of legitimate science, refusing to accept what can’t be theoretically explained and experimentally verified.

 

 

That’s just plainly uncouth!

 

HBond may be a creationist troll. It’s been my experience that he does dissemble, and flaunts our rules enough that we’ve had to ban him a few times. But if he follows the rule (and it’s my and other mods’ business to make sure he does!), some fun and learning can come out of this thread.

 

Of course, some fun can come out of just letting the brawl grow and continue, but not, I think, much learning of the scientific kind. To quote Moontanman’s signature: “Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it”.

 

So, everyone, please, stick to the science.

 

 

What the hell did I do wrong?

[HydrogenBond]

The source that I will use for information about water is Water Structure and Science. This online book summarizes everything that is known about water and has hundreds of references. I was not aware Martin Chaplin was called a pseudo-scientist. It might be do to him trying to be compile all research on water and not just PC water science. I assume science is about being open minded, because you never know.

 

Here is an interesting example of PC science being debunked. In school, we are taught that water molecules have a central oxygen atom, with two hydrogen and two unbounded electron pairs distributed like a tetrahedron. This is shown below:water molecule

 

 

The most current scientific into the structure of water molecules have found that water looks like this (same reference page). I was surprised, when I saw this the first time, since I assumed what is taught in school would be both true and current. If I had suggested this modern structure, without a reference, I would have been fought to maintain the misinformation in the traditions.

 

 

An interesting fact, is that the atoms in water H2O only stay together about 1 millisecond. Water is constantly breaking apart and swapping atoms with other water. This is connected to hydrogen bonding.

Edited April 28, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

No enzymes will work without water. Even the DNA needs to be hydrated at least 30%, to form its active shape.

 

Again all my references are available in that one book.

 

Nucleic acid hydration

 

B-DNA needs about 30%, by weight, water to maintain its native conformation in the crystalline state. Partial dehydration converts it to A-DNA (with a narrower and deeper major groove and very wide but shallow minor groove). The transition for this transformation occurs at about 20 water molecules per base pair, with its midpoint at about 15 water molecules per base pair [1343]. The B-DNA possesses a spanning water network, and it is the loss of its continuity [1343] together with the competition between hydration and direct cation coupling to the free oxygen atoms in the phosphate groups [1394] that gives rise to the transition to A-DNA. This dehydration-induced structural transition decreases the free energy required for A-DNA deformation and twisting, which is usefully employed by encouraging supercoiling but eventually leads to denaturation [441]. Further dehydration results in the least hydrated D-DNA (favored by excess counter-ions that shield the DNA phosphate charges), which has a very narrow minor groove with a string of alternating water and counter-ions distributed along its edge [816].

 

The DNA is designed to include water. If you look at the hydrogen bonding between base pairs, there is an extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on adenine, for example. I often wonder why this extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen, when it is not needed by the base pair????. It turns out this is used by water, which is an intimate part of the DNA's structure. The result is water is bound to the DNA and to other water molecules, in cooperative fashion, forming a double helix of water, via the major and minor grooves. These grooves can be tweaked via the overall hydration content; different in alpha and beta DNA.

 

Edited April 28, 2012 by HydrogenBond