The random theory that biology uses predicted that proteins will fold with average folds. The reason was protein are easily denatured being weakly held together. Thermal vibrations in the water was considered sufficient to overcome these weak force. It turned out protein fold with exact folds, which is repeatable. The statistical assumption for protein folding was proven wrong. There is still no statistical explanation for this, even though this was demonstrated over 50 years ago. Does biology need more time? Or does it need to ignore the facts to perpetuate the myth? This same theory also predicts random mutations. If we go back to evolution, say we assume that folding of protein is random and based on averages, like is assumed by the random model. That means at every step in evolution from replicators, to now, there can never be two exact cells with the same reaction kinetics. since there will be variations in protein shapes. How could life evolve if there is no consistency in its enzymes? The analogy is building houses with no building codes. All the crafts can do whatever they wish. Water is responsible for folding protein into exact folds so there are standard building codes. If had all the amino acids, protein, nucleic acids, RNA molecules needed for life, but these are not folded properly, you will not have life. Structure equals dynamics. All you have is a warehouse of building supplies. You need skilled craftsmen to make a house. Water is the carpenter that shapes the raw materials via secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures. It is essential to life. What assumptions did biology use when it predicted random or average folds in protein? Is any of this applied to mutations? The fact remains whoever knows how to define the co-partnership of water, controls the future of the industry.