A Going Concern: with Royal Truman Pt II + Abbie Leash: Unleashed!
This week your host Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney conclude Dr. Royal Truman's concerns with Professor Dave, and talk witnessing out in the world with Abbie Leash!
*Welcome Back Dr. Truman: Royal Truman, PhD received his bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and in computer science from SUNY Buffalo, an M.B.A from the University of Michigan, a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Michigan State with post-graduate studies in bioinformatics at the universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim in Germany. Royal believes the God of Abraham created the universe recently, and that His Son Jesus Christ is the savior of the world.
*Freshman Genetics: Concern #11, Dr. Truman points out that Professor Dave is incorrect when he says "every organism" has a genome with genes wrapped around histones, (by far, most organisms do not).
*Expression of Ignorance: Concern #12, Professor Dave states that enzymes interact with promoters in the encoding region of the genome. (chemical reactions are not being catalyzed at promoter sites).
*Mutant Claim: Concern #13, When Professor Dave claimed a mutation is a change in the genetic code, he incorrectly defined mutations. An insignificant proportion of mutations change the genetic code, and many mutations damage regulator functions instead of protein sequences.
*But Who's Counting? Concern #14, Professor Dave's claims that "creationists lie about the proportion of the genome that is functional" and that "genes make up only 1-2% of the genome" are together a false accusation against creation scientists, and an erroneous reference to only the exons on mRNA.
*What's Your Function? Concern #15, Dave's errant description of "coding DNA" overlooks that many categories of genes are not protein coding at all, so 1-2% is grossly wrong. Also, transfer RNA by definition is not coding DNA; and there is no such term as 'genes for ribosomes' in the definition of coding DNA.
*Encode Project Anyone? Concern #16, The claim that "10% max" of the genome is functional ignores widely acknowledged regulatory and structural functions (already well understood before Professor Dave got his "science communicator" credentials on YouTube.)
*Lies and Statistics: Concern #17, David James makes the absurd claim that creation science researchers do not allow for realignment after discrepancies are detected, which is a mathematically impossible explanation for the 84% value. This absurd claim is also directly contradicted by the papers published by the creation scientists.
*Off the Leash! Listen to software engineer and creation speaker Abbie Leash discuss the battles of faith, creation and real science out there in the college-educated world.
This week your host Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney conclude Dr. Royal Truman's concerns with Professor Dave, and talk witnessing out in the world with Abbie Leash!
*Welcome Back Dr. Truman: Royal Truman, PhD received his bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and in computer science from SUNY Buffalo, an M.B.A from the University of Michigan, a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Michigan State with post-graduate studies in bioinformatics at the universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim in Germany. Royal believes the God of Abraham created the universe recently, and that His Son Jesus Christ is the savior of the world.
*Freshman Genetics: Concern #11, Dr. Truman points out that Professor Dave is incorrect when he says "every organism" has a genome with genes wrapped around histones, (by far, most organisms do not).
*Expression of Ignorance: Concern #12, Professor Dave states that enzymes interact with promoters in the encoding region of the genome. (chemical reactions are not being catalyzed at promoter sites).
*Mutant Claim: Concern #13, When Professor Dave claimed a mutation is a change in the genetic code, he incorrectly defined mutations. An insignificant proportion of mutations change the genetic code, and many mutations damage regulator functions instead of protein sequences.
*But Who's Counting? Concern #14, Professor Dave's claims that "creationists lie about the proportion of the genome that is functional" and that "genes make up only 1-2% of the genome" are together a false accusation against creation scientists, and an erroneous reference to only the exons on mRNA.
*What's Your Function? Concern #15, Dave's errant description of "coding DNA" overlooks that many categories of genes are not protein coding at all, so 1-2% is grossly wrong. Also, transfer RNA by definition is not coding DNA; and there is no such term as 'genes for ribosomes' in the definition of coding DNA.
*Encode Project Anyone? Concern #16, The claim that "10% max" of the genome is functional ignores widely acknowledged regulatory and structural functions (already well understood before Professor Dave got his "science communicator" credentials on YouTube.)
*Lies and Statistics: Concern #17, David James makes the absurd claim that creation science researchers do not allow for realignment after discrepancies are detected, which is a mathematically impossible explanation for the 84% value. This absurd claim is also directly contradicted by the papers published by the creation scientists.
*Off the Leash! Listen to software engineer and creation speaker Abbie Leash discuss the battles of faith, creation and real science out there in the college-educated world.