The Problem with Christians

[Redbeard The Pink]

We're still talking about the evolutionary record for photosynthesis, right?


Those organisms are part of the evolutionary record for photosynthesis (among other things, but I'm trying to stay on subject).


These organisms display metabolic processes and reactions that are simpler forms/pieces of the process known as photosynthesis, so they show how the process might have developed in steps from simpler ones.


It's hardly speculative because we can still study those life forms and come to conclusions based on direct observation. That is literally the opposite of speculative.

All we have are incredibly complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy and more complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy. I'm not saying that there aren't more than one ways to do it, I'm saying that it is speculative to say that one led to the other. 

Transitioning from one to the other would require invoking many enzymes that we have no idea if they ever existed. It IS speculative. It is speculation based on observation, but it is speculation none the less. Why not speculate and say that the more complex ones have degraded and lost components to become the less complex ones?

Based on semantics like that, I could call anything "speculation" with the intention of dismissing it.


Geology? That's just speculation based on what we observe about rocks.


Chemistry? That's just speculation about what we observe when we mix stuff.


Theology? That's just speculation based on what we observe in religious texts and testimonies.


That's just an intellectually dishonest word game, bro. Shame shame. 


When both genetics and metabolic processes connect older forms of life with newer ones, and the older forms of these processes appear to be more simple than what we currently observe, then yes, it is reasonable to "speculate" that these processes continued to grow and refine over time as some of these organisms evolved into newer, more complex things.


Please tell me you're not trying to throw down the "you weren't there, therefore you're just speculating" argument. You're not, are you? If that argument were sound, forensic science would be totally useless, and so would many other forms of science. We do not have to observe an event directly to know that it occurred. We can reason that an event occurred by the evidence it leaves behind. This is why field evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in both the lab and the courtroom.