Never! All you have is THAT smashed bug. That bug was the only time those molecules will be assembled into THAT bug in the history of the universe. You have altered your own experiment by your own interference.
Better yet, if we could microwave that bug so it weighed 200#'s and smashed you to death. How many billions of years until you reassemble yourself and fly away?
I'm uncertain what the relevance of this might be. A process does not require any information beyond what is already inherent in the process. Much the same as a hurricane assembles itself via a given sequence of events (before going on to dissipate) so do higher forms of life assemble themselves via given sequences of events. The required information is already an inherent part of the process.
I am particularly interested in the formulas that says order increases in an open system.
Well, one of those appears to be the evolutionary model - and it manages to say that admirably well.
How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.
The fact that something happens even under the most extraordinary of circumstances does not mean it never happens. Even if there's only a 10 billion to 1 chance of abiogenesis at any given moment in a particular environment that simply means that you would expect to see it in only 1 out of 10 billion examples of that environment. In that event, whatever sentient beings arose from the 10 billion to 1 chance would a priori find themselves the product of that most extraordinary of circumstances.
(ie. I can smash a bug and have all of the components, in the proper proportion to produce life... so how many billion years are needed when that bug reassembles itself and flies away?)
I can smash a diamond or an obsidian into dust in the proper proportion to reproduce a diamond or an obsidian. Regardless, the likelihood of those dust particles ever reassembling themselves into a diamond or an obsidian are exceedingly dim. This does not establish that they did not do so, however, under the original circumstances while undergoing the initial process.
Your point would be relevant if an insect were the simplest possible life form. In fact, it is not, and the debate is whether the first life (self replicating chemical cell) was only somewhat simpler than the simplest currently known or feasible bacterial cell; or much simpler than that, in the early primordial "soup" where it would have had no competititon and would have been surrounded by nutrients.
In fact, it is easy to increase order in an open system. To take a trivial example: Insert a seed in a sterile medium. Let the sun shine. A plant will grow.
Perhaps more to the point, the problem of the initial code: I agree that it is very unlikely that the first self-replicating cells had DNA, or at any rate used DNA in anything like the current system, where base pairs are read by other complex chemical structures and code for amino acid chains. Too complex to self-assemble randomly, as all you creationists would agree. But in an already existing line of self-replicating creatures (which would quickly dominate the Earth, there being no competition), there is no difficulty in evolving new structures and functions. Indded, it would be impossible for this not to happen, as more successful creatures with useful innovations would of course be those which left more offspring.