4 ms·

The argument is identical to arguments supporting intelligent design, that because it evolved in an unlikely or complex way, it must have been intentionally cre

The argument is identical to arguments supporting intelligent design, that because it evolved in an unlikely or complex way, it must have been intentionally created. There's a reason we haven't seen a virus like this in a century - because it's so unlikely that a new virus will appear in any given year with both a high rate of transmission and a high fatality rate.

dnautics 6y ago
This is bad logic. Suppose some state sponsored lab actually did create a hybrid virus (not terribly hard, as demonstrated by the controversial ccr5-binder/flu fusion which was generated in Australia iirc) what would be the evidentiary standard you would use to judge that this 1) could be or 2) was the case, of course, assuming you could not have access to the state's lab logs? Or would you throw up your hands and say "it's unprovable"?
akimball 6y ago
Interestingly, the often repeated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comment is also a relative likelihood argument "like those supporting intelligent design". I'm pretty sure the proportion of people making such arguments who grasp both ergodicity and measure theory is small, since experts on those subjects are typically much more cautious about wielding such brushes. See: I just made a relative likelihood argument. May I have a Dunning-Krugerrand?
bitcurious 6y ago
>The argument is identical to arguments supporting intelligent design, that because it evolved in an unlikely or complex way, it must have been intentionally created. I think intelligent design would be a pretty plausible explanation for humanity, if we already knew there was a god.
- hatsunearu 6y ago
  Intelligent design is kind of stupid because life is clearly not designed very intelligently. The "evidence" that sars-cov-2 is designed with a guided purpose is kind of there in the paper, though. And that we as a species (and the bois in WIV) clearly had the capacity to do so.

dnautics 6y ago

This is bad logic. Suppose some state sponsored lab actually did create a hybrid virus (not terribly hard, as demonstrated by the controversial ccr5-binder/flu fusion which was generated in Australia iirc) what would be the evidentiary standard you would use to judge that this 1) could be or 2) was the case, of course, assuming you could not have access to the state's lab logs? Or would you throw up your hands and say "it's unprovable"?

akimball 6y ago

Interestingly, the often repeated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comment is also a relative likelihood argument "like those supporting intelligent design". I'm pretty sure the proportion of people making such arguments who grasp both ergodicity and measure theory is small, since experts on those subjects are typically much more cautious about wielding such brushes. See: I just made a relative likelihood argument. May I have a Dunning-Krugerrand?

bitcurious 6y ago

>The argument is identical to arguments supporting intelligent design, that because it evolved in an unlikely or complex way, it must have been intentionally created. I think intelligent design would be a pretty plausible explanation for humanity, if we already knew there was a god.

hatsunearu 6y ago
Intelligent design is kind of stupid because life is clearly not designed very intelligently. The "evidence" that sars-cov-2 is designed with a guided purpose is kind of there in the paper, though. And that we as a species (and the bois in WIV) clearly had the capacity to do so.