Let's start with a proper label: as in the theory of the evolution of life forms. This is important because it does NOT include a theory of how life originated. We still don't know how life originated, or where it originated, or even where all it currently exists. So that what we refer to in shorthand as "Evolution" is only a theory about how the life forms that we know to exist developed the physical characteristics that they currently possess.
The disconnect between abiogenesis; science of the origin of life, and the theory of evolution creates a conceptual problem. How can you draw the correct curve, if that curve does not have to intersect the origin?
It would be like creating a theory for the life of a person, in terms of their past and future choices, starting the analysis when they are 18 years old. The analysis leaves out ages 1-18, since these do not have to be part of the theory. The conceptual problem that arises is these very early years, can have a major impact on the rest of their life. If we leave them out, this can make the analysis appear more random than it is. One bad event from childhood, can make decisions late in life appear random/irrational, if this knowledge is not there.
In terms of a better theory, that includes the origin, water was there from day one. It was involved in the formation of the building blocks; amino acids, all the way to the formation of the genetic material. Water is still here today and is still critical to the operation called life. This is not part of the working evolutionary analysis, other than as a footnote.
The insistence that life can form in other solvents is a good indication that evolutionary science is weak in terms of the unique properties of water ,which are critical to the needs of the living state, from alpha to omega. They assumer you can start at age 18 and the rest still works. The random theory is an artifact of leaving out the cornerstone from day one, and building on sand without a footing that touches the origin.
It's not about adaptation. It appears to be but it's actually just random mutation.
Are you aware that the DNA double helix also contains a double helix of water that occupies the major and minor grooves of the double helix. The degree of hydration; amount of water, determines the conformation of the DNA.
The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right-handed A-DNA pitch 28.2
Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34
Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31
Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2
Å 8 bp and the left-handed Z-DNA pitch 43
Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.
DNA does not work without the water acting as scaffolding. You cannot use other solvents as scaffolding. You can tweak the water scaffolding via global information transfer in the hydrogen bonding of water. This can add stresses to the DNA to reflect needs.
When the DNA is duplicated, proofreading enzymes will move along the DNA and correct any errors. The stresses induced in the water scaffolding, can create ambiguity for the proofreading enzymes, so instead of correcting a typo, they will let it remain. This can alter the meaning of the gene; deer instead of dear. This change is not random, but is in equilibrium with the potentials in the global water, due to need.