The concept of the Burden of Proof exists for a reason, because anyone can make any claim and then point to "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" invoking the Argument from Ignorance where their claim is supposedly more credible until it has been disproved.
If you make the claim that the virus originated from a lab, then back it up by evidence. If you can't then the only thing that left is to believe in it or not. And that's where we enter the territory of religion.
If it walks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. If it originated near a Virology lab then that is the most likely from the lab. A novel virus appear near a lab? Surely it must have come from a bat
Which is identical to a "gain of function" process in a lab. (Which is not "engineering" a virus). Gain of function is just lab accelerated natural evolution. The kind of work that the lab in Wuhan was doing.
Ask mr. Occam if you can borrow a razor. We're looking for the most probable, towards which multiple independent clues point, as listed in the summary.
Ask mr. Occam if you can borrow a razor. We're looking for the most probable, towards which multiple independent clues point, as listed in the summary.
So let's look the top contenders:
A new variant of coronavirus spawned from nature (quite feasible), but somehow jumped species(also feasible but not common), with precisely zero evidence of any intermediary species being discovered (not impossible either but this is the evidence that is missing).
Or, a lab, specifically researching mutated coronaviruses, with infected human specimens on site, performing the exact GOF technology needed to rapidly evolve Coronaviruses, which just happens to be within 15 min
Most probable explanation is an accidental escape from the virus lab on the other side of town when the lab technician charged with destroying infected lab animals instead gives them to his relatives to sell in the wuhan wet market.
"Now here's something you're really going to like!"
-- Rocket J. Squirrel
'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2, Insightful)
No evidence at all, says Xi, vigorously brushing his hands together while standing on a particularly lumpy rug.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Pushing a counter-narrative doesn't change the reality!
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make the claim that the virus originated from a lab, then back it up by evidence. If you can't then the only thing that left is to believe in it or not. And that's where we enter the territory of religion.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:-1, Troll)
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is identical to a "gain of function" process in a lab. (Which is not "engineering" a virus). Gain of function is just lab accelerated natural evolution. The kind of work that the lab in Wuhan was doing.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:1)
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask mr. Occam if you can borrow a razor. We're looking for the most probable, towards which multiple independent clues point, as listed in the summary.
So let's look the top contenders: A new variant of coronavirus spawned from nature (quite feasible), but somehow jumped species(also feasible but not common), with precisely zero evidence of any intermediary species being discovered (not impossible either but this is the evidence that is missing).
Or, a lab, specifically researching mutated coronaviruses, with infected human specimens on site, performing the exact GOF technology needed to rapidly evolve Coronaviruses, which just happens to be within 15 min
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Most probable explanation is an accidental escape from the virus lab on the other side of town when the lab technician charged with destroying infected lab animals instead gives them to his relatives to sell in the wuhan wet market.