4 ms·

'A lot of evidence' isn't one link. But let's look at that link. "We are an anonymous group of researchers" Well that's a good start innit (to be fair, it loo

'A lot of evidence' isn't one link. But let's look at that link. "We are an anonymous group of researchers" Well that's a good start innit (to be fair, it looks like it really is well intentioned and they are making an honest attempt but without attribution it's impossible to tell). anyway, their summary, which you should have posted: "Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus." It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way.

DoingIsLearning 7y ago
> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way. It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation. I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory: Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  You appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite. > Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory? Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with. There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    > Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.
    - DoingIsLearning 7y ago
      It's gaslighting from a throwaway account, at some point we just have to accept that no platform is immune to this and we carry on.
scythe 7y ago
> We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; "Engineered virus" is a much more drastic claim than "escaped from a lab". Practically all of the viruses studied in labs are natural. Engineering living (or quasi-living) things beyond adding this or that protein is still more science fiction than science.
- ac29 7y ago
  > Engineering living (or quasi-living) things beyond adding this or that protein is still more science fiction than science. Its certainly much farther along than you might think: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1040.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1040.full (link to paper "Design of a synthetic yeast genome") edit: more recent info on the project here https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05164-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05164-3
diebeforei485 7y ago
I don't understand this fixation on things being either engineered or perfectly natural. The spillover event could have occurred in a lab. Selective breeding exists. This is well-explained in the paper, which it appears you didn't actually read.

DoingIsLearning 7y ago

> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way. It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation. I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory: Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
You appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite. > Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory? Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with. There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  > Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.
  - DoingIsLearning 7y ago
    It's gaslighting from a throwaway account, at some point we just have to accept that no platform is immune to this and we carry on.

scythe 7y ago

> We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; "Engineered virus" is a much more drastic claim than "escaped from a lab". Practically all of the viruses studied in labs are natural. Engineering living (or quasi-living) things beyond adding this or that protein is still more science fiction than science.

ac29 7y ago
> Engineering living (or quasi-living) things beyond adding this or that protein is still more science fiction than science. Its certainly much farther along than you might think: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1040.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1040.full (link to paper "Design of a synthetic yeast genome") edit: more recent info on the project here https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05164-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05164-3

diebeforei485 7y ago

I don't understand this fixation on things being either engineered or perfectly natural. The spillover event could have occurred in a lab. Selective breeding exists. This is well-explained in the paper, which it appears you didn't actually read.