Precision-Controlled Complex Chemistry

By Rhiannonw

Tue, 20 Feb 2024
  • 201 reads
6 comments
 

Atomic design ‘solar-system-like’ –
negative electrons orbiting positive nuclei,
atoms share some of their orbiting electrons
(to bind together in combination),
and that sometimes unequally
so one becomes electrically positive,
and the other one negative,
and can cling by that electrical ionic attraction.

Bonds breaking, new bonds forming;
and the staggeringly precise complicated-mega molecules
found in living creatures
with their necessarily exact 3D folding configurations
interlocking in complex regulated precise
‘lock and key’ interactions
together just when and where needed
which could never have arisen by chance
(though how popular the comfortable and convenient lie),
and could never change in big ways
to make different viable working systems,
different types of creatures –
the differences are too wide and complex;
unless so many all occurred at once, the results would be
weakened creatures, damaged, to likely die
not survive and thrive.

There is no evidence of such changes having happened,
in the fossils lying catastrophically and quickly buried,
whose age is rapidly being shown to be from less long ago,
as soft tissues continue to be found in many, so
the time for the statistically impossible
chance development of these complex and wonderful systems
has shrunk to debunk such hypotheses!

[IP Chemistry]

cf https://www.abctales.com/story/rhiannonw/biochemistry

https://www.abctales.com/story/rhiannonw/what%E2%80%99s-odds-ip

https://www.abctales.com/story/rhiannonw/tiniest-motor

and others in https://www.abctales.com/collection/grand-designs

Certificate U
Poem
Grand Designs
Nature
Inspiration Point (work that responds to our weekly writing cue)

Comments

Submitted by D G Moody on

A fascinating read  Rhiannon; and I can see I will need to come back to it a few more times; but from what I can understand so far, it is the unanawered question of the first cause, which for many is God.

Dougie Moody

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

thank youk, Dougie. I have just been reading your latest post.!

I think in Britain there are still so few that realise that the so-called evidence for life evolving (as opposed to small changes in variation within species) is crumbling and that very many scientists are seeing the problems of trying to defend it. As a biochemist student I thrilled at the complexity of life and that strengthened my conviction that the record in Genesis has no problems in being accepted scientifically. There the 'first cause' does call himself God as he is deciding and accomplishiing this creation.

Recently not only  has there been so much finding of soft tissues in fossils, but the problems of dating rocks to the vast ages they require to consider this development from simple to complex (the opposite to how the world generallly works now!) has become more obvious. Rocks get vastly varying dating, and I think some very new rocks from volcanic eruptions have been 'dated' as very old. For the problem of what the initial concentrations of the elements was, whether some amounts have leached out in other ways, and the possibility of rates of decay varying, make it impossible really, and many factors examined in the world point to a relatively young age for our earth, and the universe! (As galaxies further away are seen there is surprise that they are as developed as near ones I think. And however far they are away, there could have been light from them brought to earth at the time of their being formed to be seen, though that is difficult for us to contemplate.) Rhiannon

 

Submitted by D G Moody on

Thanks again Rhiannon. And I keep an open mind on this (any) subject. As a relucatant theist, I have concluded that there most have been a 'first cause' notwithstanding the views that differ; and if this was God, then that fits in with a purpose in the time-line of the universe.

Dougie Moody

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

Thank you for reading and replying. I'm sorry to have written so much, but it seemed best to try to throw out as briefly as possible a few points for thought from my field! Rhiannon

 

Submitted by Tom Brown on

Incredible complexity and precision hey? Maybe you could give some typical numbers?

I remember they said that organic chemistry is far more complex and a much larger discipline than analytic chemistry, as you say there are myriads of immensely complicated molecules due to carbon making up to four valence bonds and so long chains and such of carbon atoms are possible. Organic chemistry includes all compounds of carbon. In fact life is not conceivable without carbon.

A friend of mine was expelled from university for punching a lecturer in the face but you can understand it it was a chemistry lecturer.

Myself I always had a good distinction but in the final exams had barely scraped through, was the same lecturer I've always found chemistry professors very disagreeable I thought it was something affected them in the laboratories some chemical perhaps. They can't help it. Those labs probably are not safe.

What you say on fossils and carbon dating, that is a different story. I have some fundamental logical problems with this. People just assume things must be true without questioning, like in the cosmology public entertainment arena too.

Good! Keep well Rhiannon! Tom

 

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

Well , Tom, something of the complexity of DNA is well-known, and the enzymes are proteins and act as catalysts to many reactions, which somehow are timed when needed etc.  and when you think of all the respiration and energy and construction that goes into each little bag-like cell, it does quite boggle the mind … ! The protein enzymes are folded in ways that fit the sites to draw two molecuels together I think etc. See the the thrid link above about the tiniest motor.  Rhiannon