I agree. >>You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand. That's for sure. No way to depict

I agree. >>You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand. That's for sure. No way to depict all of it at once... >>I think the implicit "there's actually a lot of stuff in between there" is not a big deal, much as the implicit "these molecules aren't really colored" is not a big deal in the service of explanatory power. I disagree partly here. I imagine (hope! ;) "professionals" do know about the missing and false color "stuff" BUT every picture flushed towards broad public (vs professional publication f.e.) consumption should contain as much context as possible, context "disturbing" the mechanical picture presented of bio-molecular actually all natural reactions today. "knowing where to go" is wrong as you say and it would not "fit" / "work" / "be accepted" / "look believable" the moment the surrounding soup gets visible. Leaving this kind of context out, i think, propels many misunderstandings about the way science is actually understanding nature. >> which I suppose could be 'beauty' in its own way, but very different from the way it's presented. Very true. cheers