Evolution or Devolution?

I don't think it's clear in the least what ordered atomic states have to do with the descent of organisms with modification. Certainly evolutionary change is a "change to states of betterment" only in the loosest possible sense, and certainly not in any sense relevant to atomic states.I'm sorry but I simply don't see the relevance of the second law to the discussion. Evolution does not proceed by ordering atomic states, but by natural selection and random mutation. It's not redundant, it's simply not expressed as proteins. Its presence is not contradictory to evolution; in fact, it's quite consistent with expectations. This has never been shown to be true, except when literally true in the case of persons with near-total brain injury. This is not consistent with the fossil record, which is a record of the expanding diversity of living things in both directions of complexity over time. Up and down. How does he know that they're grey? It seems like he's conflating evolutionry misunderstandings with alien abduction claims, none of which have ever been substantiated, and most of which are mutually contradicting. How hard did you try? It seriously took me only like 2 minutes.

Evolution doesn't contradict that, because in the simplest case of evolution, where an organism gives rise to improved offspring, that's two different systems (the parent and the offspring). That's not one state turning into a more ordered state, or one system's entropy decreasing.The order of states has no relevance to the evolution of organisms. This is impossible. Overall, the action of selective forces in the presence of reproduction with variation ("mutation") leads to evolution, not devolution.

On what basis do you conclude that Shakespeare represents a more ordered atomic state than an ape? That's not at all obvious to me, nor to anyone familiar with the subject.

Why? Why would a larger brain represent a more ordered state?