Certain repetitive DNA sequences have long been viewed as "confirmation" of evolution. Since they are not genes that code for proteins, they were considered to be unnecessary. Therefore, they were supposedly available for alterations that would eventually lead to a brand new function within the cell or body after all the "right" mutations had accumulated.

Three geologists have reported what they called the first "successful" direct dating of dinosaur bone. Will this new radioisotope dating (or radiodating) technique solve the problems that plagued older dating methods? If history is anything to go by, then the answer is no.

A trio of geologists has published what they called the first successful direct dating of dinosaur bone. They used a new laser technique to measure radioisotopes in the bone, yielding an age of millions of years.

But this "age" was not only the result of a broken radioisotope system, it was contrived to agree with previously assigned dates for the samples.

Not long ago, scientists discovered that what they thought was a spore-bearing fungal slime mold was actually a temporary congregation of forest-floor, single-cell amoebas. This presented evolutionists with a puzzle…was the organism in question a fungus or an amoeba? If the latter, how could a "simple" one-cell amoeba "learn" to behave like a fungus?