No. They were observed in the 1800s, but the structure and mechanism were not elucidated until around 1970 https://www.nature.com/articles/245380a0 It was a big surprise to see elements that greatly resembled existing motors (stator, rotor, etc) and in fact was one of the things that inspired the concept of intelligent design (even though, we believe instead that it evolved spontaneously)

▲

UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with saying that God created life is that it doesn't actually explain anything because then you have to explain where a vastly more complex God came from. If the universe or life requires an explanation, adding an eternal God doesn't simplify the problem so we might as well cut out the middleman and view the physical world itself as the eternal starting point.

	▲	kaycey2022 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Have you seen Attack on titan. Watching that whole show, half the time you dont know why something is happening, except that it is cool. But once you know the whole story, you can piece things together no problem.
	▲	BrtByte an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[dead]
	▲	ctrlkctrls an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		God (any god) is a comforting mythology to help explain the things in life that are hard to come to terms with, but it's a mythology, it's no different to believing in Harry Potter, or Dionysus. Bringing the concept of God into a biology discussion is sort of embarrassing. "Intelligent design" is for the unimaginative mind. We must always be open to being wrong, evolution fits what we know now, but I'm sure in a century we'll have a better understanding and it'll be a more complete understanding, but what it won't need is a divine eternal. The world's not flat, there is no god. Can we get back to science now.

▲

BrtByte an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]