What's that supposed to mean? I explained exactly why you hadn't gotten one from me: because I had not made that argument!
The thermodynamic properties of evolution are the same as those for life. If life doesn't violate the 2nd law, then evolution doesn't.
Oh, really? Is this yet another example of evolutionists assuming their conclusion thus not requiring any evidence? Me, just speaking personally, I prefer to investigate evidence and see where that points. Just a personal preference, mind you.
So you are saying that there is no meaningful entropic distinction to be drawn between the process whereby a fertilized embryo develops into a living adult, and eventually a dead adult and the process whereby a self-replicating bunch of proteins developed into the full set of living beings on the earth today, with 747s, computers, New York City, etc. None at all? There's no increase in information/"order"/complexity? Perhaps, I still have to brush up on my understanding of Shannon, informational entropy, and that sort of stuff.
But there is no 2nd law barrier to abiogenesis; we see many organic compounds in deep space. The question is how they get put together into the first replicator. If you want to believe this was a miracle, I can't argue against you.
So because we find organic compounds distributed around in deep space suddenly there's no entropic problem with them spontaneously orgnazing themselves into a self-replicating "living" organism? Please. There's no increase in information?
I think you need to distinguish between those things you accept on faith and those you can demostrate scientifically.
Tell me what process assumed by evolution violates the 2nd Law. Be specific. Mutation, selection, whatever. The evidence has been around for decades. Every phenomenon required to make evolution possible can be observed. Name one that can't.