>>18813595But it's not. If something forms that evolves by nature, and therefore increases in complexity and competency at replication and evolution aftr enouh time you will have very complex things.
If you prouve that nucleotides can form, and nucleotides are enough to kick off life, you have a pretty good model for how life started.
>>18813596This is pretty accurate
>>18813597Well. For most things we have immune staining, So we know what it is and does. Also can just isolate the proteins and observe their fucktion. And there is epistasis analysis... We know pretty well what most organells do. There is still plenty we don't know, but that's more on the molecular level than the organells.
>>18813599We can, but then you say "see it needed a creator". Because we need to help it along. Because we can't reploicate in a lab the trillions upon trillions of gallons of water and millions of years it took to form naturally. Because it is a big game of probability. A ploinucleotide 250 nt long is needed for selfereplication. Once you have that, you have life. But there are millions and millions of such molecules that don't replicate, and only a few that do. And naturally, they form mostely random. So it's a question of probability, and by extention ammount.
>>18813600Epicurean paradox
>>18813601Pic rleated. TEM photo of iver cell.
>>18813605This.
