But is it more likely for the virus to have undergone sufficient natural mutation from its closest known relative* (RaTG13) in order for it to have become both

But is it more likely for the virus to have undergone sufficient natural mutation from its closest known relative* (RaTG13) in order for it to have become both capable of and very effective at infecting humans (ACE2 receptors) and for it to have then been so carelessly disposed of from the BSL-4 Wuhan biolab that someone came into contact with it and became infected, or is it more likely for it to have been the product of the Gain-of-Function research on bat coronaviruses in that lab which the NIH began funding in 2014 due to the US-wide ban on Gain-of-Function research that lasted until 2017? [0] Consider the fact that lab safety protocols are designed to contain pathogens, which creates very poor conditions for viruses to naturally evolve and transfer zoonotically, whereas Gain-of-Function research has the express aim of creating ideal conditions for evolution which is both directed and can proceed many orders of magnitude faster. *Also, there's plenty of doubt as to whether RaTG13[1] actually exists; we just have the RNA sequence and we're currently just taking Beijing's word for that. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan... [1] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-serious-data-discrepancies-in-RaTG13-sequence.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-...