Iron has been shown to have the bond broken in hot forest fires (rusty nails and such becoming pools of molten iron) and near volcanic activity.
Sounds about right. Enough heat and/or pressure can break up 'most any compound.
I don't understand the "lock up tight" comment unless it is about the fact that rust requires energy input to break apart. You are right about the lower energy level of compounds that spontaneously combine. Snowflakes and rust are at lower energy levels (they release energy to reach that state) but they are still more complex. Some living compounds are at a lower energy level than the surrounding chemicals but they are more complex.
Sorry. You probably know better than I do. When I said "lock up" I just meant they'd become immune or resistant to anything adding on. It has to do with the total number of electrons in the outer shell. I remember the principle, but I forget which numbers will combine with more atoms and which numbers will "lock up", and refuse to combine with anything further.
I know the inert ones on the right side of the table don't like to combine with anything. Likewise, any compound that adds up to the correct number will become inert (or virtually inert - I don't remember if the distinguish between the two).
Anyhow, building a complex molecule starting from scratch isn't going to be child's play. You start randomly joining atoms, and it's not long before they'll lock up on you. Break 'em up with heat? Sure... and start over again. Unless you provide a means to add in the next element or compound right away when they're at the right temperature and pressure to let you do it.
Wash, rinse, repeat. But the more progress you make, the harder it is to keep the whole thing from falling apart. And you need the right components available at the right time. You also need heat at the right time. You need shelter from anything that might destroy the project, and a barrier against unwanted elements that might contaminate your project.
You need a lab and a good technician, actually.
Oh yeah... and a lot more smarts than anyone's demonstrated thus far, because none of 'em have yet come close.
Ah! So the emphasis is on chemical complexity!! I thought you were saying that complexity itself could not occur naturally. That's why I chose the snowflake. Besides, change of state (liquid to solid) is a change of chemistry. I guess that's not the chemistry you were interested in talking about.
Arguing "complexity itself" would likely degenerate into quibbling over the definition. And you might like to maneuver me into trying to prove a negative.
Just like genetic variation has observed limits, but evolutionists require "proof that these limits always apply", so to do physical complexity, chemical complexity, and informational complexity have distinct limits when found in nature. However, I cannot convince evolutionists that these limits apply "in all times under all circumstances".
I think believing they don't is akin to believing different laws of physics might apply in different galaxies - unless someone can demonstrate that there's a mechanism to ensure that they apply "at all times in all places".
Looking at cells, there are extremely complex things going on in there. However, each step is a chemical reaction. The compound either loses energy, transferring it to something else, or gains energy, taking it from something else.
Each step is a chemical reaction occurring at the right location and in the right sequence with the right molecule(s). It's the extreme opposite of random.
The energy gains and losses are another factor with potential to destroy or deplete the process, were it random. That this has been accounted for is another indication that they're well-designed.
These are questions I would expect anti-abiogenesists to explore in order to support their theory that God made life in it's final form instantaneously.
Louis Pasteur's experiment was not about producing life in the way abiogenesis is. It was about determining if complex life forms (maggots...etc) arise from dead meat.
Yes. His was one in a series of experiments required to combat an entrenched belief.
Besides, life comes from nonlife all the time....look at flowers. They take in nutrients from the soil and carbondioxide and sunlight. Voila! they add cells and grow, adding life to their being! Maybe that is not abiogenesis either.
Ya think?
And besides, if nature could manufacture anything better in the way of complexity, why are you guys always bringing up snow?
I'm sure I could find stuff much more complex arising naturally. I'll work on it but it may take a bit.
Well, there's sand dunes and water-sorted sediments. I tend to think of them on an order vs. disorder scale rather than a complex vs. simple scale. Just for kicks I think I'll google for the most complex natural molecule, to cover the chemical complexity angle.
