(April 8, 2016 at 2:03 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: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.(April 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm)AAA Wrote: You know not everyone thinks the creation story is exactly how it happened.
Also all those organisms you mention have something in common. They all have a fully functional metabolism. And yeah, they say it hasn't changed much in the billions of years, but what does that tell you? At the beginning, when genetic diversity would have been minimal, the cells somehow were able to evolve a diverse and complex system of metabolism that requires many different enzymes working together. Then after there is a lot more genetic variation (in the following billions of years) we don't see them evolving much more. And what do you mean that is hardly speculative?!?! Why do these life forms that live at the same time represent pieces of the evolutionary record to you?
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.
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?
