Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Are you saying that that quote I highlighted on their article ended up not actually being there conclusion at the end of their paper?

Yes, for starters because the quote said that it was a model. Your misrepresentation of their conclusion did not include that.

@Meerkat_SK5

This is what they said in their “discussions” that made me think it was their conclusion:

" As stated above, our recursive GV-based model protocell demonstrated a primitive model cell cycle comprising four discrete phases. "

The authors never, ever claim that their model demonstrating a primitive cell cycle is sufficient to demonstrate “how lifelike cells emerged from nonliving matter,” the words you put in their mouths.

@Meerkat_SK5

To get from bacteria to anatomical structures, there needs to be a mechanism to add new genetic information such as genes to make arms, legs, brains, etc.

Do you think that your genome includes any genes that are involved in making arms, but not legs? Vice versa?