The author seems to make the false assumption that the real "hard" evidence for photosynthesis is fossil-based. And so that this is now the best proof that exis

The author seems to make the false assumption that the real "hard" evidence for photosynthesis is fossil-based. And so that this is now the best proof that exists. I'm guessing the article is confused because he's not an expert in the field and probably hasn't looked into it deeply. That's frankly the problem with most pop-science reporting. Even if they wanted to, nobody who writes for a living has the time to actually become an expert in so many different fields. So they write about things they don't understand.