I can see why you might think that Shepherdless but actually Prologos is correct.
All living things locally and temporarily defy entropy.
To be precise, I said that life doesn't contravene "the second law of thermodynamics", and I stand by that. (Entropy was the term used by Prologos.)
When you apply the second law of thermodynamics, you must first select the closed system that you are considering. By "closed", I mean with a boundary around that system where no energy enters or exits. The law predicts that if you can identify such a system, entropy within it can only increase.
A living thing is not such a closed system. All living things eat, breathe, etc.
Simple examples of what the second law of thermodynamics predicts are:
- a petrol engine that runs out of fuel will eventually come to a halt;
- it is impossible to build a "perpetual wheel"; and
- if you tape over the mouth and nose of a living thing (and stick a cork in it), it will eventually die.
If you are evaluating a living thing that CAN eat (ie get an external source of energy), or an engine that has an external supply of fuel, etc, then you have to apply the FIRST law of thermodynamics.
So living things don't "defy" the second law of thermodynamics; it is just that that law does not apply to them. (I suppose in a strict literal sense, they do temporarily defy entropy.)
In fact, the only being that I can think of that defies the second law of thermodynamics is God, but perhaps I will leave that discussion for another day.