This refers to Robert Gentry's studies of Polonium Halos in granite. Gentry was a worker at, IIRC, Oak Ridge, who managed to get his results published in SCIENCE magazine. I studied this back in the day, in preparation for a debate with Henry Morris.
These halos are the result of radioactive inclusions of Uranium, and have a complex variability due to the various decay products. Polonium is an evanescent link in the decay chain, and Gentry claimed to have found pure Polonium halos, which were missing the traces of other decay products in the chain. This was taken by him to be evidence of Special Creation, because of the short half-life of Polonium.
Here's a refutation.
What does this have to do with evolution??
You link ot hte refutaiton was also refuted- Gentry’s discovery has stood for over two decades, and a site liek Talkorigins cna claim all they like that they ‘refuted’ Gentry- but the fact is that they haven’t- their ‘refutation’ has several problems with it- which they of course won’t tell you because htey know they haven’t infact ‘refuted’ anything- but htey do love to beat their chest and claim they have- they have an overinflated view of themselves I’m afraid
And just another point- Gentry’s discoveries have not been ‘peer review discreditted’- Soemthign Wacka seems to put a lot of faith in- so yeah- Gentry’s work stil lstands in peer review as valid despite sites liek Talkorigins and infidels.org claimign ot have ‘refuted’ Gentry- Scientists actually reviewing his work certainly haven’t been able to refute Gentry- but again- TO and other such sites do love beatign hteir chest after misleading peopel with their faulty ‘counter-arguments’ (which incidently have re-rebuttled elsewhere- somethign they won’t disclose to an unsuspecting public)
If you’re goign to list the ‘refutations’ at least list where those being criticised resond to the criticisms- Gentry defends hismelf quite adequately agaisnt the silly claism over on TO here: Evolution must involve origins http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
You’ll find several sites that have refuted and expopsed the error in what Talkorigins claimed here:
The collapse of ‘geologic time’
Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes ‘long age’.
http://creation.com/the-collapse-of-geologic-time
http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467
And:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=471
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp