`== Thanks for feedback == Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy.  It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life.  The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”.  Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution.  What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do.  This leads to an important misconception.  That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life.  That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated.  Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2  : Your draft article, , is written more in the form of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. To be useful to readers (to be in context) the information you want to convey should be added to the existing article. Having a new article will do noting to correct the 'misconception' you are referring to, and I suspect the same thing is probably mentioned in several other articles without being fully explained.  :By the way, please don't think I'm trying to be difficult on grounds of not 'understanding'... that the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious to anyone with a decent understanding of physics. That the article you're using in a source is in The American Biology Teacher instead of a scientific journal, also, makes it pretty blatant that it's just an explanation, and not 'original reseaarch'. It's simply that this is a case where your goal would be better served by improving the discussion of the matter in other places instead of writing a new article.  :, since you had previously declined this also, any comments?  `