A simpler explanation is that Trump just surrounded himself with sycophants and incompetents who just said the things he wanted to hear. Even if those things were not supported by any credible evidence.
Where is the credible evidence that it came from wildlife? Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border. And also in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which performed gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straigh
Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan
I find this claim highly dubious. Bats live fucking everywhere.
and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border.
So? The closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-1 was located in Yunnan, *thousands* of kilometers from Guangdong, where the outbreak originated.
This is because while bats are the reservoir for SARS-CoV like viruses, it requires some kind of interspecies jump or recombination to become virulent in humans.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straight-up argument from ignorance
No, it is not. An argument from ignorance would be claiming that "we don't see evidence that the changes were engineered, therefor they are not."
They are claiming that the evidence suggests the changes are natural. Evidence to the contrary is not the same thing as a lack of evidence.
You're misconstruing their argument.
not to mention that it presumes that any man-made changes would be intentional
There is a mountain of evidence that SARS-CoV viruses can jump from their bat reservoirs to various other mammals, and then on to humans.
Literally every single SARS-CoV variants was "man-made" in that we provided the opportunity for the viruses to recombine.
and should not get anywhere near the amount of credence that it has gotten. It only does because lots of people accept an argument from authority.
Accepting the word of someone is not accepting an argument from authority.
The "wildlife crossover" argument relies on logical fallacies.
I wish I could say your argument relied on logical fallacies, but it does not. It relies on outright falsehoods.
Shame on you, shithead.
An argument from ignorance would be claiming that "we don't see evidence that the changes were engineered, therefor they are not."
I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit, but let me address this. This paper [nature.com] was cited earlier in the thread, and it's a good example of the genre. Why do they dismiss the lab origin theory?
As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted[7,11]. Furthermore, if gen
I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit, but let me address this. This paper [nature.com] was cited earlier in the thread, and it's a good example of the genre. Why do they dismiss the lab origin theory?
They don't.
They claim, and I quote: "This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."
and
"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus."
And they're correct.
Purposeful manipulation would have resulted in a *good* ACE2 binding protein. This is well within current capabilities.
They then go on to say that the natural origins are more plausible.
Again, they're correct.
Since there is evidence supportin
The first part I quoted is where they discussed "purposeful manipulation". The second part I quoted is where they dismiss the idea of an accidental lab escape. And if you actually read:
However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone[20]. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonot
However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone[20]. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.
This does not say it couldn't have come from a lab.
It says, matter of factually- that it doesn't come from any previously used virus backbone, thus a natural origin is more likely. This is exactly what I said before.
Because nobody used this virus backbone in previously published research, it must not have been done on purpose! So they offer two other ideas, each with their own problems.
They don't say that.
They say that since it hasn't been used in published research, it's more plausible to be natural in origin.
They never once say it could not.
This is dishonest bullshit.
That's pretty rich, after the intentional mischaracterizations above. Seriously. You've got to be trolling.
The closest known wild variant was kept at WIV.
Citation needed.
WIV did gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
The exact origin of the new coronavirus remains a mystery to this day, but the search for answers is not just about assigning blame. Unless the source is located, the true path of the virus canâ(TM)t be traced, and scientists canâ(TM)t properly study the best ways to prevent future outbreaks.
So: we do not really know where it came from, yet. And that is all.
But the whole point of this discussion is that people like you are trying to shut down the debate and investigation into where the virus came from. The whole point in this discussion other people have with you, is: you are an utter fail at logic.
> I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit
This audience doesn't usually have a good working knowledge of genetics or genetic engineering so they'll believe the dominant narrative, even when it contains glaring scientific and logic errors. Gell-Mann amnesia strikes again!
They don't even know who illegally funded GoF at the Wuhan BS4 and why that creates the Mother of All conflicts of interest. cf. TFS
Even if you wrote up the entire argument, succinctly and without error, they wouldn't re
So? The closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-1 was located in Yunnan, *thousands* of kilometers from Guangdong, where the outbreak originated.
Worth noting since I don't see this mentioned much, Humans from Yunnan were infected with a bat strain of Coronavirus a few years ago and were then taken (both dead and alive) to WIV for research. So the idea that the bats were thousands of miles away therefore is impossible holds no water.
That the changes were natural does not preclude dinking around in a laboratory.
I think it probably went like this:
Routine research finds novel virus in bats (probably not so novel, just happened to be the first place they'd noticed it), and takes it home to play with in the lab. Given it's China, both government meddling and poor procedures happen. China has a known interest in bioweapons, and such side research is probably routine with any virus studied there.
That the changes were natural does not preclude dinking around in a laboratory.
It does not. Just as the complete lack of evidence of it having been in a laboratory does not indicate that it may have been in a laboratory.
It does suggest which is more probable though.
Routine research finds novel virus in bats (probably not so novel, just happened to be the first place they'd noticed it), and takes it home to play with in the lab. Given it's China, both government meddling and poor procedures happen. China has a known interest in bioweapons, and such side research is probably routine with any virus studied there.
Sure. Except there's precisely no reason to suspect that. This disease's initial vectoring isn't far removed from SARS-CoV-1. Was the Wuhan BSL 4 lab involved in that one too?
Doesn't require that changes be engineered, just that their everyday research went awry, in part because China is more interested in how they can weaponize such stuff than they are in pure research. And I think that's what the guy was referring to. (Yes, I saw the clip.)
It does require engaging in conspiracy theories and arguing for "possibilities" that are in no way required for a theory to fit, or even probable.
I'
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Where is the credible evidence that it came from wildlife? Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border. And also in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which performed gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straigh
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan
I find this claim highly dubious. Bats live fucking everywhere.
and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border.
So? The closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-1 was located in Yunnan, *thousands* of kilometers from Guangdong, where the outbreak originated.
This is because while bats are the reservoir for SARS-CoV like viruses, it requires some kind of interspecies jump or recombination to become virulent in humans.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straight-up argument from ignorance
No, it is not. An argument from ignorance would be claiming that "we don't see evidence that the changes were engineered, therefor they are not."
They are claiming that the evidence suggests the changes are natural. Evidence to the contrary is not the same thing as a lack of evidence.
You're misconstruing their argument.
not to mention that it presumes that any man-made changes would be intentional
There is a mountain of evidence that SARS-CoV viruses can jump from their bat reservoirs to various other mammals, and then on to humans.
Literally every single SARS-CoV variants was "man-made" in that we provided the opportunity for the viruses to recombine.
and should not get anywhere near the amount of credence that it has gotten. It only does because lots of people accept an argument from authority.
Accepting the word of someone is not accepting an argument from authority.
The "wildlife crossover" argument relies on logical fallacies.
I wish I could say your argument relied on logical fallacies, but it does not. It relies on outright falsehoods.
Shame on you, shithead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit, but let me address this. This paper [nature.com] was cited earlier in the thread, and it's a good example of the genre. Why do they dismiss the lab origin theory?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit, but let me address this. This paper [nature.com] was cited earlier in the thread, and it's a good example of the genre. Why do they dismiss the lab origin theory?
They don't.
They claim, and I quote: "This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."
and
"It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus."
And they're correct.
Purposeful manipulation would have resulted in a *good* ACE2 binding protein. This is well within current capabilities.
They then go on to say that the natural origins are more plausible.
Again, they're correct.
Since there is evidence supportin
Re: (Score:2)
The first part I quoted is where they discussed "purposeful manipulation". The second part I quoted is where they dismiss the idea of an accidental lab escape. And if you actually read:
Re: (Score:2)
However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone[20]. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.
This does not say it couldn't have come from a lab.
It says, matter of factually- that it doesn't come from any previously used virus backbone, thus a natural origin is more likely. This is exactly what I said before.
Because nobody used this virus backbone in previously published research, it must not have been done on purpose! So they offer two other ideas, each with their own problems.
They don't say that.
They say that since it hasn't been used in published research, it's more plausible to be natural in origin.
They never once say it could not.
This is dishonest bullshit.
That's pretty rich, after the intentional mischaracterizations above. Seriously. You've got to be trolling.
The closest known wild variant was kept at WIV.
Citation needed.
WIV did gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
Citation n
Re: (Score:2)
WIV did gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
Citation needed.
You didn't even read huh? [politico.com]. This is my surprised face.
Re: (Score:2)
"Weird"
Let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud, eh, Judith?
Re: (Score:2)
Second paragraph of your link:
The exact origin of the new coronavirus remains a mystery to this day, but the search for answers is not just about assigning blame. Unless the source is located, the true path of the virus canâ(TM)t be traced, and scientists canâ(TM)t properly study the best ways to prevent future outbreaks.
So: we do not really know where it came from, yet. And that is all.
Re: (Score:2)
According to this paper, there is some evidence that it was genetically manipulated [nih.gov]. I personally have no ability to evaluate the evidence, so I am waiting, but it seems there is a growing discussion in the scientific community [nih.gov].
A lot of people don't want to talk about it because they don't want to encourage racism against Chinese people, which is a valid goal.
Re: (Score:2)
But the whole point of this discussion is that people like you are trying to shut down the debate and investigation into where the virus came from.
The whole point in this discussion other people have with you, is: you are an utter fail at logic.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't have the patience to deal with all your bullshit
This audience doesn't usually have a good working knowledge of genetics or genetic engineering so they'll believe the dominant narrative, even when it contains glaring scientific and logic errors. Gell-Mann amnesia strikes again!
They don't even know who illegally funded GoF at the Wuhan BS4 and why that creates the Mother of All conflicts of interest. cf. TFS
Even if you wrote up the entire argument, succinctly and without error, they wouldn't re
Re: (Score:1)
So? The closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-1 was located in Yunnan, *thousands* of kilometers from Guangdong, where the outbreak originated.
Worth noting since I don't see this mentioned much, Humans from Yunnan were infected with a bat strain of Coronavirus a few years ago and were then taken (both dead and alive) to WIV for research. So the idea that the bats were thousands of miles away therefore is impossible holds no water.
Re: (Score:2)
That the changes were natural does not preclude dinking around in a laboratory.
I think it probably went like this:
Routine research finds novel virus in bats (probably not so novel, just happened to be the first place they'd noticed it), and takes it home to play with in the lab. Given it's China, both government meddling and poor procedures happen. China has a known interest in bioweapons, and such side research is probably routine with any virus studied there.
And at some point this dinking around in the la
Re: (Score:2)
That the changes were natural does not preclude dinking around in a laboratory.
It does not. Just as the complete lack of evidence of it having been in a laboratory does not indicate that it may have been in a laboratory.
It does suggest which is more probable though.
Routine research finds novel virus in bats (probably not so novel, just happened to be the first place they'd noticed it), and takes it home to play with in the lab. Given it's China, both government meddling and poor procedures happen. China has a known interest in bioweapons, and such side research is probably routine with any virus studied there.
Sure. Except there's precisely no reason to suspect that. This disease's initial vectoring isn't far removed from SARS-CoV-1. Was the Wuhan BSL 4 lab involved in that one too?
Doesn't require that changes be engineered, just that their everyday research went awry, in part because China is more interested in how they can weaponize such stuff than they are in pure research. And I think that's what the guy was referring to. (Yes, I saw the clip.)
It does require engaging in conspiracy theories and arguing for "possibilities" that are in no way required for a theory to fit, or even probable.
I'