Deal me in

So thus saith a group of unnamed people who say some universal laws can have exceptions without cause?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#:~:text=In%20this%20direction%2C%20although%20life's,adiabatically%20isolated%2C%20meaning%20no%20heat

"Research concerning the relationship between the thermodynamic quantity entropy and both the origin and evolution of life began around the turn of the 20th century. In 1910 American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a theory of history based on the second law of thermodynamics and on the principle of entropy.[1][2]

The 1944 book What is Life? by Nobel-laureate physicist Erwin Schrödinger stimulated further research in the field. In his book, Schrödinger originally stated that life feeds on negative entropy, or negentropy as it is sometimes called, but in a later edition corrected himself in response to complaints and stated that the true source is free energy. More recent work has restricted the discussion to Gibbs free energy because biological processes on Earth normally occur at a constant temperature and pressure, such as in the atmosphere or at the bottom of the ocean, but not across both over short periods of time for individual organisms. The quantitative application of entropy balances and Gibbs energy considerations to individual cells is one of the underlying principles of growth and metabolism.[3]

Ideas about the relationship between entropy and living organisms have inspired hypotheses and speculations in many contexts, including psychology, information theory, the origin of life, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life."

"In 1863 Rudolf Clausius published his noted memoir On the Concentration of Rays of Heat and Light, and on the Limits of Its Action, wherein he outlined a preliminary relationship, based on his own work and that of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), between living processes and his newly developed concept of entropy.[citation needed] Building on this, one of the first to speculate on a possible thermodynamic perspective of organic evolution was the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. In 1875, building on the works of Clausius and Kelvin, Boltzmann reasoned:

The general struggle for existence of animate beings is not a struggle for raw materials – these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available – nor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat, but a struggle for [negative] entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.[4]"

There is nothing here that says what you claimed is possible, and I would point out to you that to harness any energy source some mechanism is required that can turn that energy into useful work without that you can have all the energy you want and it will suffer degrading like everything else in the universe, simply go to ground and level out.

Even sunlight with plants requires a means to convert light, there is no mindless, goalless, natural process outside of a mind that can direct work that builds useful mechanisms in any area, from digital, thermodynamics, mechanical engineering, and so on.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Photosynthesis_en.svg/495px-Photosynthesis_en.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Photosynthesis_en.svg/660px-Photosynthesis_en.svg.png 2x" style="border:1px solid #c8ccd1;vertical-align:middle;margin:3px auto;background:#f8f9fa;" width="330" height="330" alt="330px-Photosynthesis_en.svg.png">

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg/495px-Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg/660px-Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg 2x" style="border:1px solid #c8ccd1;vertical-align:middle;margin:3px auto;background:#f8f9fa;" width="330" height="211" alt="330px-Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg">

Photosynthesis (/ˌfoʊtəˈsɪnθəsɪs/ FOH-tə-SINTH-ə-sis)^[1]is a system of biological processes by which photosynthetic organisms, such as most plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, convert light energy, typically from sunlight, into the chemical energy necessary to fuel their activities. Photosynthetic organisms use intracellular organic compounds to store the chemical energy they produce in photosynthesis within organic compounds like sugars, glycogen, cellulose and starches. Photosynthesis is usually used to refer to oxygenic photosynthesis, a process that produces oxygen. To use this stored chemical energy, the organisms' cells metabolize the organic compounds through another process called cellular respiration. Photosynthesis plays a critical role in producing and maintaining the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere, and it supplies most of the biological energy necessary for complex life on Earth.^[2]

I was specifically addressing your claim about entropy and showing that you are wrong.

And you didn't show that, was my point.

You mean you didn't understand what was contained in the section of the article I posted?

If you had understood it would be clear that entropy by itself is no impediment to the emergence of life. The vital thing is for there to be a source of energy that drives such things and we have one - our local star. the Sun.

You can call your imagination facts if you want, but facts tend to be things we can test and validate.

As I pointed out to you having an energy source is meaningless if you also don’t have a means to capture, regulate, and turn the energy into a positive resource to do work. That is true of every energy source if you reject that show your work, where is the supporting data? Energy that isn’t directed into work is harmful and doesn’t last long.

Your argument is wondering over all the place again - you claimed entropy was an impediment to the emergence of life but I've shown why that is not the case.

The problematic nature of the emergence of life remains but it can't be ruled out on the grounds of entropy alone. That's the limit of what I've been trying to explain in the most recent posts and I'm saying no more than that.

I'm saying that unless you have something putting things together, working against normal degrading, it will all wind down, or get cold, fall apart that is nature working. In the face of that you are suggesting there are exceptions to the rule, and part of your exception you cited said.

"... which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth."

A transition of energy was what I focused on, you do not get a "transition of energy" to do anything unless there is some mechanism in place to use that energy for work. Biological machines can take sunlight, sugars, and so on and utilize that energy in productive ways, without those biological features converting energy to productive work, that power is not fueling anything that can use it.

For a process that supposedly builds on earlier features in an unguided, mindless manner you have nothing alive, skipping life starting, then moving right into complex living features without explanation. I'm telling you that is unnatural, you have not addressed that complaint with anything outside of someone's far-reaching and inadequate guess.

As a non-Biologist (like me) you're entitled to hold any opinion you wish but let's remember that neither my opinion nor your opinion is an informed one?

PLEASE, you are pushing something that isn't seen in nature as if that is real, you don't have to be a biologist to know if it isn't observable if it cannot be validated if the only thing it does is try to make a theory fit reality where it doesn't, so something is wrong. We see degrading in the universe across the board, you don't need to be a biologist for that, we can interfere with any of the laws of nature by using our minds to design things that overcome the laws of nature temporarily, so a mind interfering is a natural cause we see in nature, dumb luck and necessity isn't something that overcomes such long odds, the number of ways to go wrong is too large.