> My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a la

> My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a lab." Unless something major has changed, I don't believe we have firm evidence either way. > Difficulty in obtaining evidence doesn't change the burden of proof from "proving a positive" to "disproving a negative". When difficulty obtaining evidence has to do with geopolitics, rather than science, then yes it becomes very diferent. Because geopolitics, and people, you can convince, investigate, and hold accountable. Science and nature less so. That's why this is important. Anyway, your entire purpose making your argument is to question the need for any investigation it seems. That is why it seemingly excuses the fact that we have not actually investigated the lab in any meaningful way. I don't believe this is acceptable.