Inorganic Chemical Reactions

I don't really get it. Somehow the question seem incomplete IMO.
Because if we're just talking about any old chemical reaction, then obviously millions happen all over the world every second.
The research labs at the major drug companies alone do tens of thousanRAB every day.
 
How are you confused? Creationists claim that evolution is false due to statistical improbabilities of abiogenesis. Aside from the problem that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, the creationist argument relies upon a very slow or sequential series of reactions. This is quite ludicrous as we know that inorganic reactions happen in the trillions, probably sextillions every second across just this planet. The argument that statistically evolution/abiogenesis is impossible is fundamentally retarded if one understanRAB the rate of inorganic reactions.

Trying to get a series of data from 1 die in a sequential order will take ages. Roll 900 trillion dies at a time and you'll get it real fast.
 
Planetary "inorganic reactions" occur far more often than have been remotely discussed here. Every atom of every molecule in every physical object on or in the planet is subject to continual change with its enviornment, and many of those changes result in a reaction causing its jump to a new molecular form.

So to discuss numbers of inorganic reactions in the world, it would be more telling to first ask how many atoms exist in the world and atmosphere, and then guess, based on the range of reactions people know to be possible, what portion of the total number of atoms in the world are shifting from one molecular expression to another in a given period of time. Since molecular reactions are extremely fast, even 1 second is an eternity. So even if you were say "reactions per second", you would still be dealing with many multiples of a large portion of the numbers of atoms in the world.

Remember, almost everything around you is constantly changing on a molecular level, -- energy from the sun drives the winRAB and waves which constantly interact with their own internal molecules as well as molecules on the physical surface. Internal energy in the earth drives countless reactions beneath your feet deep underground. Iron rusts, rain dissolves gases and other molecules, unstable isotopes emit radiation and form new isotopes, minerals crystallize, the list is enormous.

In terms of the intelligent deisign debate however, you would have to also restrict your number of reactions only to areas where life-related reactions could even occur, but conversely, add in millions of years, much less seconRAB. The numbers you are talking about are so astronomical, if you were to write them down as numbers on paper, you would have books and books of numbers, and there is no existing vocabulary term to describe it. To try and name the number with a word is, by definition, underestimating it.
 
Compared to organic reactions which involve catalysts, they are extremely slow. If an organic catalyst is applied to an inorganic reaction it can be sped up. But generally speaking, within the world of reactions, they are slow. Enzymes are far more often involved in the average organic reaction than inorganic.

NOt to mention that reaction rates vary across so many variables, concentration of reactants versus products, temperature, presence of contaminants etc. Many many many inorganic reactions are observable and timeable without any special equipment. Most organic (and in particular biological, which make up the vast majority of chemical reactions occuring at any given moment) occur so rapidly due to the presence of enzymes.

Huck
 
Wow! That has to be the most antithetical chemistry post that I've ever seen. :wow:
Congratulations, your knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming. :rolleyes:
 
Congratulations on posting an arrogant and berating message. I hope you feel really good about yourself that you have studied so much chemistry and know so much more than everyone else on the subject. It obviously means you are extremely valuable. Have you told the CIA yet? I am sure they are knocking at your door even now for your incredible expertise.

It is extremely poor form to put some one down because their education is less than yours on forums such as these. If I am incorrect then say so. If my understanding of organic and inorganic reactions is incorrect then say so. And then tell me why. Don't just be a jerk.

By the way, the reason people are discussing inorganic reactions is that is the way the original post is worded. I am not going to assume the poster meant something else. They need to be responsible to post correctly otherwise that get garbage arguments and clog the servers.
 
Actually, the CIA isn't interested in chemists unless they're bombmakers.

It's in poor form to attempt to post, authoritatively, about a topic that you aren't an authority on. Had you prefaced your reply with IMO or if I understand correctly.....I wouldn't have answered with a smart-assed response.


If you had read the OP's subsequent responses, you'd have seen that he already knew the answer and was attempting to trap creationists. The problem is that inorganic reactions aren't the same as organic reactions and life is carbon-based, so inorganic reactions are of relatively minor importance in comparison.

I'll tell you what. If you don't pretend to know chemistry, I won't pretend to be a smart ass. Deal?
 
Back
Top