The whole point is that some people CAN replicate, but not everyone can, because the documentation for real (interesting) experiments would be so complex for a layman that they would likely become confused and never finish. If I give you and your 20 best friends a $300M EUV machine with all the documentation in the world, the best thing you could do is sell it for $10M in parts. Give it to TSMC or Intel's experts and they will make $Bs in chips at 50% margins. YOU can't replicate the experiment. Most people can't replicate the experiment, and being unable to do so does NOT make you special. However, some people can replicate it many millions of times a year.

Who's results would you publish?

Undermining the whole concept of "science".

Perhaps with some justification, perhaps not. But if replication is impossible because of "irreducible complexity" (seems to be the argument?) then why bother with science at all?

Things are not that bad. But in some fields other approaches may be more productive.

For example clinical medicine may have more to contribute than scientific medicine. Psychological studies in particular are notorious for being impossible to replicate. Does not mean we should give up on psychology. It does not have to be science to be useful