3 ms·
It's not in Nicolas Wade's article, which I now see has been unfairly maligned along with David Baltimore who's been selectively quoted to leave out the technic
by Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
It's not in Nicolas Wade's article, which I now see has been unfairly maligned along with David Baltimore who's been selectively quoted to leave out the technical detail of what made the latter say the SARS-CoV-2 is a smoking gun, see the 4) A Question of Codons:
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038 https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-th... If correct, that's getting strongly into bioengineering evidence.
You are of course more likely correct about the alignment issue, I can't find my source now, and the above is probably much stronger evidence. For the alignment you'd have to be a virologist, probably one specializing in coronaviruses, to be able to really judge this. Of course a whole bunch of biologists have shifted their focus to coronaviruses in the last year and a half.
- lamontcg 5y agoSo you don't have any idea what you're talking about and don't have any ability to weigh if what you're looking at is human bioengineering or natural bionengineering, but you're going to strongly assert that its evidence of human tampering.
- deugo 5y agoYes.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- henearkr 5y agoThe author is contradicting himself: said that virus engineering is done by splicing of existing other coronavirii, and then also said that the two codons CGG is very unusual for coronavirii. Splicing is also naturally done everywhere and all the time, just by natural genetic events, so if there was splicing to create the two CGG codons, it can be natural. So still nothing to point out to bioengineering in my opinion.
- teorema 5y agoI think the issue is the splicing flankers and recombinant mutation occurring naturally in that particular place.