3 ms·
The evidence that it's natural is based on similarities to a common ancestor, RaTG13. Googling "RaTG13" will turn up results suggesting it's natural over artifi
by 12elephant 7y ago
The evidence that it's natural is based on similarities to a common ancestor, RaTG13. Googling "RaTG13" will turn up results suggesting it's natural over artificial.
What is truly bizarre is that the gene sequence of this common ancestor RaTG13 was only released in late January 2020 by Shi's lab in Wuhan – the same lab in question regarding the leak.
For the moment, I am hesitant to trust any research premised on analysis of RaTG13.
- sanxiyn 7y agoFirst, RaTG13 is not an ancestor, it's a sibling. Next, the evidence is based on ratio of amino acid changes to silent changes, not based on similarity.
- 12elephant 7y agoYes – sibling, not ancestor. Regardless, the analysis is premised on the RaTG13 genome, and I am somewhat skeptical of analysis based on RaTG13. I think accidental release of a naturally evolved virus is still a plausible hypothesis. To discount it as "conspiracy theory" seems to be wishful thinking. I will continue to monitor findings on this until more conclusive, non-RaTG13 derived evidence is available.