That has been verified repeatedly. When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent. Then Darwin explained why it happened so. And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted. And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.
. Could just as well be proof of commonality of design by a common designer, not common descent.
Nope. That would mean that sharks and whales would have similar DNA. Creationism can't explain that, but evolutionary theory does. You simply place your faith in the former rather than the latter.
No transitional forms have been found and proved to be such
Let's test your faith in your new doctrine. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional form.
Not that it matters, even if God did allow for the ability to evolve form one species to another in His creation, this would not disprove creation.
Right. It would just falsify creationism. Which it does.
To the contrary, even evolution itself is far more likely the result of design than random chance, which even most “Christian” evolutionists propagate.
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. And of course evolution is God's creation.
The "life ex nihilo faith of YE creationists is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. Creationists ignore that, and unfortunately they scrap the biblical account of creation while doing so.
Darwin correctly observed that there would be innumerable transitional forms with slight variations.
Which is what we see whenever the fossil record is good. As you probably remember, YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions a large number of them in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.
Would you like me to show you again?
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information. Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus. For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%) The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30
Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48. An increase information. The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.
Sorry, they were unable to even come up with an estimate. They just cited Shannon's name, but fail to understand how information is actually calculated. Creationists often talk about "information", but as in this case, they really don't know what it is, or even how it's determined.
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect.
You've been misled on that. There are many, many favorable mutations, while most of them have no discernable positive or negative effect. You have several dozen yourself that were not present in either of your parents.
It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it.
As you see by the example above, Spetner doesn't understand what "information" means. Population geneticists calculate information using Shannon's equation.
A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.”
Gaining a new allele is not in any sense losing something. It's essential to the health and survival of the population. Once a population drops below a certain level of variability, it usually goes extinct.
The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill.
That's not what Kimura found. He found that neutral mutations tend to enhance survival. The theory was introduced by the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura in 1968, and independently by two American biologists Jack Lester King and Thomas Hughes Jukes in 1969, and described in detail by Kimura in his 1983 monograph The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin. The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive "neutralist-selectionist" controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, much evidence has been found for selection at molecular level.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution
Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information.”
Sanford thinks "information" means "good." That's not what it means. And he seems to have purposely misrepresented Kimura:The “unrealistic results” that Kimura notes of plugging beneficial mutations into his model are that “the rate of evolution can become enormously high in a very large population” (i.e. beneficial mutations would become fixed at high rates), which is not an effect that is normally observed in reality. So the reason Kimura omitted beneficial mutations is not that they have too little effect (as Sanford implies), but that in his model they would have too much effect. This is just an artifact of his model (which, like all models, is a simplification of the real situation), not a statement about whether beneficial mutations have an effect in the real world.
Kimura  acknowledges that with his model, slightly deleterious mutations can build up, but (using parameter values he considers realistic), he does not see this as a threat to most species:
Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.
In other words, within his theoretical framework, the mutational load can be readily compensated by the occasional beneficial mutation.
All this is clearly spelled out by Kimura in The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, which Sanford cites in his Genetic Entropy. Thus, Sanford misled his readers on Kimura’s treatment of beneficial mutations, and few readers would dig into Kimura’s writings to discover what he really thought.https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
Barbarian, regarding why C-14 isn't used by paleontologists:
Quite true. C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.
So, why not just carbon date a bunch of dinosaur bones and prove the point of their age?
So, why not just use a candy thermometer to measure the temperature of a blast furnace? If you thought about it for a bit, I bet you could figure out why not.
Barbarian, regarding why cells and tissue have not been found in fossils
So far, none. But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.
Your site merely makes the claim, but does not support it. Notice, BTW, that when they did try to carbon date dinosaur bones, they just got numbers close to the maximum possible with that method. Just as a candy thermometer would give you a reading of perhaps 250 degrees for the melted steel in a blast furnace.
So far, none. All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.
The above provided information and video already refute your above statement.
Nope. Just unsupported claims. No intact cells, much intact tissue has ever been found. In biology, "tissue" means "group of cells organized for a function"; the use of "tissue" to mean "thin bit of material" is the source of the confusion. However there is something pretty cool about finding some collagen.Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
One more prediction of evolutionary theory confirmed.
Science doesn't deal in "proof." However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact. Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?
Negative, it is the documented speculation of the religious affiliation of evolutionists.
Nope. For example, most apes have notably curved digits, useful for climbing. Humans have strait digits. The transitional forms between arboreal apes and humans have slightly curved digits.
Apes usually have long, narrow hips. Humans have wide, short hips to aid in efficient walking. Transitional forms have hips somewhere between.
Apes have large faces and relatively small braincases. Humans have large brain cases and small faces. Transitional forms have brains and faces intermediate between humans and other apes.
Would you like to see some details? I'll include some in a later post.