@roohif
  @roohif
roohif | Why Common Descent is a FACT ... and why Common Designer is NOT. @roohif | Uploaded March 2019 | Updated October 2024, 14 minutes ago.
Error: At the 7:40, I ascribe 30-40% to the allowable variation - obviously that's the wrong way around. MOST of the protein sequence for a given protein allows variation.

Link to the study I cited in the video, keeping in mind there are plenty of others similar to it:

jbc.org/content/261/7/3259.full.pdf

Also a link to a paper by Dan Graur in response to the ENCODE projects finding of "80% functionality" for the human genome:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570035
Why Common Descent is a FACT ... and why Common Designer is NOT.JTolan Media1 DOUBLES DOWN on upwards refraction 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️Following up on yesterdays Celestial Navigation video to @flatearthtests9708Its ya boy, DEAN ODLE!CanigouBREAKING: GLOBER comes clean about ANGULAR SIZE!Jeffrey Tomkins is allergic to controlsReciprocal Zennies! aka Reciprocal Zenith AnglesHey @Witsit, do you even reflect, bro?The Nitty Gritty of RefractionChromosome 2 Fusion - Are humans the only one?TESTING, TESTING, @tabooconspiracy

Why Common Descent is a FACT ... and why Common Designer is NOT. @roohif

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER