5 ms·

We know it wasn't lab made. We've know this since March. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 ht

by Jaepa 6y ago

We know it wasn't lab made. We've know this since March. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-scientists-think-of-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-lab-rumour https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-scientists-think-of...

beervirus 6y ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, realistically, it probably was not made in a lab. But it is not true that we know that.
- sjg007 6y ago
  There's plenty of evidence it is not lab made.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    There's some evidence that is suggestive, but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      > but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof. Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Read the Nature paper.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      If you are going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as 'proof' at all. You can only ever demonstrate that you are 9X% likely to be correct. Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable? Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again. Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins. Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened. Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".
    - Jaepa 6y ago
      So then just give voice to unsubstantiated rumors that contraindicate what we see in the genetic marker?
      - Jaepa 6y ago
        Also I'd like to contest that the nature study is "suggestive" that its not man made. Finding Elvis dead in Vegas is not "suggestive" that Elvis is dead. If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.
- aqme28 6y ago
  That's a kind of dangerous line of thinking. It's impossible to prove that it was not grown in a lab, which is why the burden is to show that it _was_ grown in a lab. Until we have that, we shouldn't be sharing stories about how it _might_ have been grown in a lab.
  - ionwake 6y ago
    You’re completely wrong. It is possible. You just need to find evidence of genome manipulation. Too many shills I’m editing my comment
    - Jaepa 6y ago
      https://xkcd.com/285/ https://xkcd.com/285/
      - ionwake 6y ago
        Numerous research studies talking about the non natural sequences of marker genes
        Jaepa 6y ago
        Sooo the irony of responding to [citation needed] with claims that there infact multiple unnamed studies is just lost on you I take?
    - aqme28 6y ago
      You have it backwards. That would prove that it was made in a lab. How do you prove that it wasn't made in a lab?
      - ionwake 6y ago
        Im not sure if I am talking to a teenager or GPT3, but no, I don't have anything backwards. Long sequences of the same genes are used as markers are not found in nature.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The probabilistic model of knowledge as just a collection of hypotheses that have failed to have been falsified over sufficient testing is the dominant epistemological view today in empirical sciences. Knowing = Probably Is. It's just a matter of degree, so making the statement "it is not true that we know that, but it probably is the case" is ill-formed in the absence of consistent belief thresholds. Normally I wouldn't say anything, but you did pull a "well, actually" there, so out-pedantifying seems warranted if only for the humour of the situation.
stainforth 6y ago
The downvotes on this are interesting - this is not a settled matter?
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I think there is a very big misunderstanding with this. Now, I'm not an expert, like most people commenting on this, but this is my understanding from listening to other experts. Scientists pretty much agree that this virus was not created in a lab. Howver, that doesn't mean the virus could not have been taken into a lab from the wild and allowed to reproduce under controlled conditions and basically speeding up the evolutionary process to make it more virulent in order to make it easier to study in lab conditions. This is common practice in lab study and is not possible to tell definitively that it has been done. Because it doesn't involve genetic manipulation per se. It is simply an artificially manipulated environment for the virus to grow in "naturally". It has been suggested that the propensity of the virus to spread well indoors rather than outside may be due to the fact that it spent time indoors in a lab selecting for that before it escaped back into the wild.

by Jaepa 6y ago

beervirus 6y ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, realistically, it probably was not made in a lab. But it is not true that we know that.

sjg007 6y ago
There's plenty of evidence it is not lab made.
- beervirus 6y ago
  There's some evidence that is suggestive, but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    > but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof. Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Read the Nature paper.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    If you are going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as 'proof' at all. You can only ever demonstrate that you are 9X% likely to be correct. Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable? Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again. Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins. Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened. Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".
  - Jaepa 6y ago
    So then just give voice to unsubstantiated rumors that contraindicate what we see in the genetic marker?
    - Jaepa 6y ago
      Also I'd like to contest that the nature study is "suggestive" that its not man made. Finding Elvis dead in Vegas is not "suggestive" that Elvis is dead. If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.
aqme28 6y ago
That's a kind of dangerous line of thinking. It's impossible to prove that it was not grown in a lab, which is why the burden is to show that it _was_ grown in a lab. Until we have that, we shouldn't be sharing stories about how it _might_ have been grown in a lab.
- ionwake 6y ago
  You’re completely wrong. It is possible. You just need to find evidence of genome manipulation. Too many shills I’m editing my comment
  - Jaepa 6y ago
    https://xkcd.com/285/ https://xkcd.com/285/
    - ionwake 6y ago
      Numerous research studies talking about the non natural sequences of marker genes
      - Jaepa 6y ago
        Sooo the irony of responding to [citation needed] with claims that there infact multiple unnamed studies is just lost on you I take?
  - aqme28 6y ago
    You have it backwards. That would prove that it was made in a lab. How do you prove that it wasn't made in a lab?
    - ionwake 6y ago
      Im not sure if I am talking to a teenager or GPT3, but no, I don't have anything backwards. Long sequences of the same genes are used as markers are not found in nature.
renewiltord 6y ago
The probabilistic model of knowledge as just a collection of hypotheses that have failed to have been falsified over sufficient testing is the dominant epistemological view today in empirical sciences. Knowing = Probably Is. It's just a matter of degree, so making the statement "it is not true that we know that, but it probably is the case" is ill-formed in the absence of consistent belief thresholds. Normally I wouldn't say anything, but you did pull a "well, actually" there, so out-pedantifying seems warranted if only for the humour of the situation.

stainforth 6y ago

The downvotes on this are interesting - this is not a settled matter?

jjeaff 6y ago
I think there is a very big misunderstanding with this. Now, I'm not an expert, like most people commenting on this, but this is my understanding from listening to other experts. Scientists pretty much agree that this virus was not created in a lab. Howver, that doesn't mean the virus could not have been taken into a lab from the wild and allowed to reproduce under controlled conditions and basically speeding up the evolutionary process to make it more virulent in order to make it easier to study in lab conditions. This is common practice in lab study and is not possible to tell definitively that it has been done. Because it doesn't involve genetic manipulation per se. It is simply an artificially manipulated environment for the virus to grow in "naturally". It has been suggested that the propensity of the virus to spread well indoors rather than outside may be due to the fact that it spent time indoors in a lab selecting for that before it escaped back into the wild.