Matter and energy are interchangeable only at energies large compared with those of chemical processes. In chemical thermodynamic processes, matter is not converted to energy or vice versa. So unless you think nuclear reactions have some role in evolution, this is a nonissue.
So, somebody please give me an example of a closed system in nature???
Closed in what sense? Matter, or both matter and energy?
You don't have to be an enthusiast of panspermia theory to appreciate a thoughtful, well-written essay on a most difficult topic, entropy. I know that for you this term has a very precise and well-defined meaning. But it is the scientific community itself that is propagating all these new "species" of entropy.
Entropy is not a particularly difficult topic. It only seems difficult when one starts handwaving. Klyce seems to be handwaving mightily.
Relying on people like Klyce for information on chemical thermodynamics is like relying on the daVinci code as a sourcebook for biblical criticism.
Since it is a topic not particularly difficult, why don't you quit playing games, and simply lay out both scenarios.
Oop! Never mind. Here come A-G and Doc galloping to the rescue. Thanks A-G! Thanks Doc!