This is really just a more sophisticated way of saying evolution theory must include abiogenesis.
RWP: You have again confused the second law with one of Newton's laws, in this case the law of universal gravitation. The second law says nothing about the direction of motion of the albatross.
The reason the "creationist appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to refute evolution" keeps resurfacing around here is because those of you on the evolution side only answer half the question - the thermodynamic part.
Of course, nothing violates a physical law. But that is only half the answer, it does not satisfy and that is what the whole albatross thought experiment brings to the table.
On a previous sidebar nasamn777 used the refrigerator metaphor - I just transmuted it to the biological realm using betty boop's thought experiment.
If you want to put the issue to "bed" you need to answer the whole question, to wit:
Living organisms emerge and survive despite the surrounding thermodynamic entropy of non-life they act willfully (i.e. the will to live, want to live or struggle to survive).
What is it about the living organism - which does not exist in a dead organism or in non-life - that causes it to translate the will to live to the molecular machinery which then obeys the thermodynamic (and all other) physical laws?
It's quite obvious in the living albatross flying away while the dead bird drops along with the 12 lb cannonball. But the will to live is also evident in bacteria, amoeba and so on.
Looking even deeper into the subject is the autonomy and semiosis that arises in biological life which tends to increase, functionalize, complexify (by whichever flavor your prefer) and actualize to the purpose of satisfying the will to live.
As long as the evolutionists only answer half of the question, the whole argument will continue to resurface.
For Lurkers:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Even so, the theory cannot suggest an origin (abiogenesis or biogenesis) for information (successful communication) much less the "will to live". But that is outside the domain of the "theory of evolution".
But at least these information theories - if only you would accept them - would get us past that particular argument by answering the whole question.