And the zebra horse explanation has nothing to do with what I said. There HAS to be an offspring, two actually, at some point with a discernible chromosome difference from its progenitors. There can be no way around this fact, which is the reason that the saltation theory came up.
As for radiometric dating, I have held in my hands doctoral thesis's which show the total lack of integrity in that style of dating. Dates which do not match the mentally predetermined dates are discarded, not even reported in the thesis, and discordant material is removed from the sample till they get the dates they want. Total rubbish and if a financial company operated with those rules they would all be in jail.
Anything can be construed as a transitional when you set the basis for what a species is or is not. Researchers do it by claiming new species when there is a small physiological difference in two supposedly related fossils. But unless there is someway to get DNA from these fossils, there is no proof that anything was related.
If you are talking about Tiktaalik, then that is only conjecture with no proof for any of the suggestions. This is reminiscent of the Coelacanth conjectures which were all proven wrong when a living one was found. And there are creatures alive today that have both working gills & lungs.
But the ultimate point is still that there had to be a change in the chromosomal makeup at some point into another real species, which has never been shown or proven. Even the possibility is not explained by any evolutionist, except for Dr. Goldschmidt.
And I accept the majority position for the last seventy + years as do most paleontologists and geologists who make basic sense to me. Goldschmidt did his work at the same time as did those promoting eugenics with which I also disagree completely.
Radiometric dating gives a very accurate date for the formation of the rock being tested. Period. Errors are always attributable to sampling error. Clastic inclusions make sampling painstaking and difficult. The difficulty can be overcome and the isotopes being used are improving age calculations.
I am not a pathological liar as you seem to believe. How can I just accept on faith that you have held in your hands doctoral thesis that disprove radiometric dating? I’ve neither heard of nor have I read any such thing.
You are obviously and certainly entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. The mines at which I have worked have ore bodies and geological compositions which could not have formed six thousand or even one hundred thousand years ago. Geology works. It helps locate to oil and metals you daily use.