I don’t think a simple ratio is enough to replace a recipe. You do have to remember the correct temp and cook time. Also, some products highly depend on the sequence of mixing the components. If you mix in the wrong order, it changes the outcome. Things like whipping the eggs first change the structure.
I think the OP may find this journal interesting, I read some totally fascinating articles in it. I’d avoid titles along the lines of “induction of a quaternary reaction through Epson-Barr-Samsung excitation in Snailus Protoplasmaticus light-perceiving proteins” and read those called, for example, “why does pasta stick?”
I disagree.
The question is more like asking to describe the interactions of every single molecule in the crystalline latice of a billiard ball, when struck by another billiard ball.
It CAN be done, but it would be like kicking dead whales down the beach.
The major chemical reaction is probably the baking powder and baking soda giving off carbon dioxide and causing the cookies to rise, the same as most baking.
I would say the rest of the process is mostly physical changes, other than the mailliard reactions mentioned above.
I’d consider the dominant chemical reaction (or rather, set of chemical reactions) to be the cooking reactions, which cause the texture of the cookie to change. These are mostly a matter of breaking down proteins, and re-assembling them in different ways.
Maybe “Chocolate Chip Cookie” is the English translation (or euphemism) for Крокодил ? 
:eek:
I doubt whether the proteins get broken down much in cooking a cookie, let alone re-assembled. They will get denatured, and tangled up with one another, but that is technically a physical rather than a chemical change: the protein chain gets unfolded and tangled up with others, so it can’t refold the old way, and this causes stuff to solidify (and thus contributes importantly to the texture change), but the chemical bonds in the protein will not, for the most part, be broken (or new ones be formed).
Very possibly, during cooking, there is some breaking down of the chains of starch molecules (which surely constitute the bulk of cookie mix) into shorter starch chains, or dextrins, or even perhaps sugars to some extent. That is a chemical reaction, and one that will probably affect flavor (dextrins, unlike starch, taste sweet), though, not otherwise a terribly interesting one.
Looking up baking on wikipedia:
[QUOTE]
There are eleven events that occur concurrently during baking, and some of them, such as starch glutenization, would not occur at room temperature.[10]
[ol]
[li]Fats melt;[/li][li]Gases form and expand[/li][li]Microorganisms die[/li][li]Sugar dissolves[/li][li]Egg and gluten proteins coagulate[/li][li]Starches gelatinise[/li][li]Gases evaporate[/li][li]Caramelization and Maillard browning occur on crust[/li][li]Enzymes are inactivated[/li][li]Changes occur to nutrients[/li][li]Pectin breaks down.[11] [/li][/QUOTE]
[/ol]Chemical reactions include 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11.
I am not sure what you are basing that assertion on, as I do not see any claims about which of the listed changes are or are not chemical ones at your link. In any case, the claim that “coagulation” of proteins is a chemical rather than a physical change is false, certainly as I understand the distinction (which I am pretty sure is the standard way). No major chemical bonds (I mean bonds that determine the integrity of a molecule, covalent ones, in particular) are broken or formed in the process of coagulation (or, at any rate, the breaking or forming of bonds plays no essential role in the process - I suppose in practice, in a complex and uncontrolled situation like cooking, a few might get broken incidentally).
Proteins are long chain molecules, many of which occur in the natural state scrunched up into little balls, like a wadded up tangle of string. In that form, may are soluble in water. Gentle heat of the sort used in cooking causes the balls to unscrunch, but the integrity of the chain is not compromised because the chemical bonds are not broken. This is called denaturation. When there are many protein molecules around in this condition, they tend to get tangled up with one another, forming a coagulated mass. This is what you see happen when you fry an egg, for instance. The runny, transparent white, which is a solution of protein molecules in water, coagulates into a gelatinous solid because the protein molecules have been denatured by the heat, and then become tangled up with one another. If the bonds in the protein molecules, and thus the long chains, were being broken, the stuff would not coagulate. Coagulation is a physical, not a chemical process, because no chemical bonds are, or need to be, broken, and no new molecules are formed. (Well, some types of weak “bonds”, such as hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic “bonds” may be broken or formed, but they do not really count as they do not determine the integrity of the molecule, just with making parts of a protein chain stick relatively loosely to itself or to other nearby molecules, including other protein chains.)
Incidentally, sugar dissolving is also a physical, not a chemical, process. The starch gelatinizing is, at least in part, a chemical process, and the chemical aspect of it is what I was describing in the bit you quote from my earlier post (probably there is also some physical tangling up of starch molecular chains involved).
Number 10 on your list, “Changes occur to nutrients”, is far to vague to classify, and in fact encompasses everything else on the list, apart from what happens to gasses. I guess the item is a catch-all for any other things that happen that the list maker has not thought of. (And incidentally, gasses, if they are already gasses, do not evaporate, so #7 is bullshit too. Gasses are, no doubt, driven off.)
Wow. Twenty hydrogen atoms and only two carbon atoms.
(Look around you.
Look around you.
Look around you.)
That assertion did not come specifically from the link, it is my assertion based upon my understanding of the terms used, with reference to the linked descriptions as necessary. That is why it is not in the quote box.
I tried to look up coagulation. The primary description was for blood, via wikipedia.
That sure as hell sounds like chemical changes to me.
Then there’s this:
Second entry, American Heritage Science Dictionary. Yep, chemical reactions.
I suppose one can argue over what a chemical reaction is. I appreciate your description. Sounds like the mechanism of coagulation in blood is a different process than coagulation in cooking.
Dissolving involves breaking a compound into ions, no? Isn’t that a chemical process?
I will concede it is pretty vague. Also, the term “nutrient” is pretty vague.
Yes, #7 sounds like it’s really a restatement of #2. Note that I skipped it.
AIUI, a chemical reaction involves the electrons on the valence shell of an atom. For example, sodium loses an electron and chlorine accepts it. With water, two hydrogen atoms share their electron with each oxygen atom.
Unlike salt, which is an ionic molecule that dissociates in water so that you have Na[sup]+[/sup] and Cl[sup]-[/sup] ions surrounded by H[sub]2[/sub]O molecules, sucrose is a covalently-bonded non-metal/non-metal molecule that it does not dissociate into ions.
There are definitely chemical reactions going on in baking. There are also ingredients that change state or no not participate in a reaction. So my original question would have an answer that had all of the molecules and formula units on one side, and all of the reacted molecules and formula units and the unreacted ones on the other side. But it sounds like there are too many chemicals involved, and too many reactions to write the equation.
Dissolution of an ionic compound is a chemical process (despite what you might have been told in high school), but sugar is not an ionic compound.
That’s what I meant when I said sugar was covalent.
Well clearly you do not have a very good grasp of what some of these processes actually are, what they involve, and the difference between chemical and physical processes.
Well clearly Wikipedia and the Free Dictionary let you down in this instance. The clotting of blood and the denaturation and coagulation of proteins by heat are quite different, unrelated processes. All they have in common is the that they involve the changing of biological substances in the liquid or colloidal phase into gelatinous solids (which is all the non-technical term “coagulation” means). I spent some time and effort in my post in describing the denaturation/coagulation of proteins by heat, in non-technical terms, and explaining why it is physical, not chemical. Why don’t you read that and learn instead of trying to contradict me on the basis of your incomplete understanding of largely irrelevant and notoriously unreliable third-hand sources from the internet?
Yes, it is a totally different process. Why are you arguing with me about it on the basis of what Wikipedia is telling you about blood clotting?
Actually the clotting of blood, which is a very complex matter, is very largely a physical process too, but there are certainly a lot more genuinely chemical aspects crucially involved in it than there are in the heat denaturation of proteins in cooking.
And yes, there is some wiggle room over what should count as a physical or a chemical process, but you show no signs of having a grasp of what the relevant issues might be, and by any lights the denaturation of proteins by heat is very largely if not entirely physical not chemical.
(1) Not necessarily, and not in this case. (2) That is one of the cases (unlike protein denaturation) where there is a good deal ambiguity about what should count as chemical or physical.
What’s next, are you going to tell me my socks don’t match and I smell funny? I have a fairly good handle on it for something I learned 20 years ago and don’t actually use. I admit I’m not fully versed on what “coagulation” actually is, which is why I attempted to look it up. I concede that chemistry never was my strong point, but it’s not like I don’t know what a molecule is, though the difference between ionic and covalent apparently slipped my mind.
You’re being unnecessarily testy. I wasn’t contradicting you, I just explained where I got my information and concede they mislead me. I also just admitted you gave a good description - you just quoted me doing so. So I fail to see why your being so snotty about it.
:rolleyes: I’m trying to participate in a conversation, and you’re playing “I’m smarter than you”.
Hey, guys! Have a cookie. They’re chocolate chip! 
Here is an animated lesson that might answer some of your questions.
Just to clarify, regarding #2: Gasses form - yes, the results of a chemical reaction. Gasses expand - nope, a simple physical change.