Forgive me, but I must register the strongest of objections to your assertion. I am not aware of any living humans or anything recorded by a previously living human that claims direct observation of evolution. All such claims are based on inferences from forensics. This means that patterns or alleged patterns associated with real objects in existence today (fossils, rocks, layers of sediment, etc.) are used to hypothesize about past events and real world objects. None of these past events is observable, testable, or provable. Please help me understand how this comports with the scientific method?
I understand the value of forensics and its use in solving contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous events, like a plane crash or a crime. However, in these cases we still have the real world objects available for study. In the case of the study of fossils and other aspects of the earth, we have only the imprint or patterns left behind. We have suggestive material, but not the actual materials.
I am truly baffled that scientists do not place such speculation and conjecture in a completely different realm. Such activity fits the patterns of faith and belief much more readily than science. Just because we decide how to categorize a “mess of stuff” does not necessarily mean anything can be deduced with certanty about how that stuff came to be, or, what predecessor stuff must have existed. We have a lot of “might haves and probably’s.” We do not have certitude. The very same disdain cast on religious believers in a Diety is rightly cast upon religious believers in evolution I would assert.
The very fact that you cannot prove this and must resort to ridicule of the sizeable numbers of those who disagree lends credence to this argument.
I have often wondered about this myself. Still searching this through.
As regards the article:
Is not the steepest path for energy dispersal towards equilibrium just the direct flow of the sun out into space? Why, when it passes over the earth, does life slow down this path (ie, make it less steep). Life, if anything, retards the speed of the energy that wants to race out into space. The state of planet earth that would result in the fastest dispersal would be a a dead one, with a cold center.
So life should not be.
In fact, if we want to give the second law its way, the end of all life is imminent too. Life just gets in the way.
If this is bad logic, someone do jump in.
What the article seems to be saying then, is that evolution is attempting to speed up the eventual cessation of all life. I would expect just sort a thing from a random process, regardless if it is modulated by a selection mechanism.