It's going to be a few hundred years before we get to that point, if we ever get there.
Bio is just really complicated, there may never be anything like a 'easy to use system.' We're still on the beach of it's ocean, counting the colors of stones.
For instance, in developmental bio (going from one cell to a functioning infant) we have three theories of how a cell determines what it should develop into: 1) The English model: The daughter cells get told what to be by the mother cells 2) The American model: the daughter cells take a look around themselves and determine what to be by taking a poll of the other nearby cells 3) The Las Vegas model: it's all random with lots of apoptosis and going broke.
They very fact that we think these models are right is very concerning to the field. We know deep down that none of this can be correct, but have not been able to disprove it all that well. To be clear here: dev biologists are nearly certain that their theories are crap, based nearly entirely on gut feelings. That's how gun-shy biologists are with any whiff of a 'grand theory'. That's how complicated things are.
It's not a given that bio can really ever be reduced back down to something understandable and simultaneously reflective of the 'real' state of things. That's not something nature is obliged to provide us.
Even more fundamental question is - why does a cell divide? All literature that I came across tells me "how" a cell division happens, but not "why"? What's the cause? What's the motive? For example, in Physics, the cause or motivation is reaching an equlibrium or minimality of energy transferred, entropy etc. For cell division - what's the nature's goal? Having more cells? Why?
Even searching for this is tricky, because you’ll see a ton of information on how the cell “knows” mitosis has begun and the chain reaction of what happens after that, but I found this article from 2015 [0], which refers to this Nature article [1].
It's going to be a few hundred years before we get to that point, if we ever get there.
Bio is just really complicated, there may never be anything like a 'easy to use system.' We're still on the beach of it's ocean, counting the colors of stones.
For instance, in developmental bio (going from one cell to a functioning infant) we have three theories of how a cell determines what it should develop into: 1) The English model: The daughter cells get told what to be by the mother cells 2) The American model: the daughter cells take a look around themselves and determine what to be by taking a poll of the other nearby cells 3) The Las Vegas model: it's all random with lots of apoptosis and going broke.
They very fact that we think these models are right is very concerning to the field. We know deep down that none of this can be correct, but have not been able to disprove it all that well. To be clear here: dev biologists are nearly certain that their theories are crap, based nearly entirely on gut feelings. That's how gun-shy biologists are with any whiff of a 'grand theory'. That's how complicated things are.
It's not a given that bio can really ever be reduced back down to something understandable and simultaneously reflective of the 'real' state of things. That's not something nature is obliged to provide us.