Yes, I have three specific questions:
1) Exactly what supposed step in evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? No sweeping generalizations here, how about a specific description or example of where the entropy of a chemical/biological system must have had increased beyond the limits of what is allowed by the influx of sunlight & geothermal energy in order for the evolutionary model to work, and the specific process(es) that violate thermodynamic laws?
2) How is it that evolution broke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the distant past, yet we observe evolution occurring today, just as it always has?
3) Such 'discoveries' as evolutionary steps surely amount to a revolution in thermodynamic physics. What refereed physics journals (Phys. Rev. Lett., etc.) has Sewell submitted his amazing discoveries to? Surely such a great breakthrough in physics is worthy of being published in an esteemed journal, not just consumption by the general populace, unless he's just trying to rake in a quick buck at the expense of scientific literacy.
Sorry, but the tendency of intermediate thermodynamic systems to come to order when the flow of heat or other energy passes through them from a source to a sink is a commonly observed phenomenon in physics. It occurs in systems as simple as groups of identical protons under the right circumstances. The notion that a series of stochastic processes in such a relatively minute part of the earth-sun system somehow violates a fundamental law of physics is completely ridiculous. You can't hand-wave thermodynamics, you need known boundary conditions on the physical system being evaluated. I would expect a mathematician to know that.
It's quite apparent that you haven't read any of this thread, let alone the original article. I believe every single one of your questions -- except the one about the "great new discovery", which is the exact opposite of what is being claimed -- has been exhaustively addressed by Dr. Sewell, myself, or other posters. Do the work and catch up first -- including clicking on the links and reading them -- and then post.
(It's precisely Sewell's point that evolutionists have been using hand-wavy arguments up to now ("earth's an open system, so there"), and he is the one insisting on specifying the boundary conditions and doing the math.)
Try turning your monitor the other way up or something, I don't know... you seem to have gotten yourself a little confused here.