I was not stating that entropy was supportive of evolution. I stated that evolution without guidance is order out of chaos which is usually not the case and gave an example of entropy.
Also when I say order out of chaos, I understand natural selection is a deciding factor on which random events to choose. But the random mutations happening at the same time period to give us the convergence we see today is highly unlikely and would suggest that either there is some guiding force in the mutations occurring or there is a natural order in the random events other than evenly spread.
I cited entropy and should have been specific about statistical entropy because it favors randomness rather than a pattern simply because there are more microstates within the macrostate which is “average”.
If there are 100 mutations and 5 time periods the largest macrostate would be 20-20-20-20-20. One of the smallest being 0-0-0-0-100. Yet, what we see in parallel evolution is much closer to 0-0-0-0-100.
correct me if i’m wrong please I never took thermodynamics.
Given a detailed description of a biological, chemical, or physical process, a thermodynamic analysis can tell us whether the process violates one of the laws of thermodynamics. If it does, then the process cannot occur as described.
However, even if a process is found not to violate the laws of thermodynamics, we still cannot say for certain whether the process is feasible as described. There may be good practical reasons why the process does not occur.
In short, compatibility with the laws of thermodynamic is necessary but not sufficient for any real process to occur.
If someone proposes a process by which life may have arisen, we can perform a thermodynamic analysis to see whether it violates the laws of thermodynamics. If it does, we can safely assume that life did not originate that way. Even if the process is found to be thermodynamically feasible, however, that alone does not mean that life actually arose that way.
Suppose that someone were to work out a detailed, step-by-step procedure by which living cells could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. Further suppose that the process is found to be thermodynamically feasible. We would still be unable to say for certain that life really did originate that way.
Let's take it a step further. Suppose it could be demonstrated that the proposed process occurs at a appreciable rate in the laboratory under primordial conditions. Although that would be an impressive scientific achievement (no doubt worthy of a Nobel Prize), we still could not be certain that things happened that way.
More important, we can never say, on the basis of our analysis or experiments, whether or not God was involved in the creation of life. The tools of science are simply not adequate to answer questions regarding God and his role in creation.