zlacker

>>codech+(OP)
One thing that's baffling to me is that I've not seen any discussion from scientists who actually know what they are talking about. All we get are articles who talk about the political side, and try to prove things by how certain actors behaved.

Most of the actual science that all the articles cite are pop-sci simplifications at best. People talk about how parts from multiple viruses would be joined together etc, how base pairs are 97% identical, etc. These are all very high level summaries that don't really allow for detailed conclusions.

Now I'm not a subject matter expert myself, but from what I've learned about evolutionary genetics is that some scenarios would be pretty obvious when looking at the genome. For example, you could look at where in the genome the mutations occur.

I'd love to read an article that goes in depth on the actual scientific arguments, rather than just rehashes of rehashes like this.

>>yarcob+jE
I agree. It's a structural weakness.

Human stories about conflicts of interest, ideological takes focused on confluency with grander theories, politically factionalization and such make the better story. Hard positions make better stories than skeptical ambiguity.

That can't be helped. Most people are going to read the compelling story, so that will be what major publications print. We do need some sort of journalism that doesn't do this. Someone needs to research and investigate this without populist considerations playing a role. Not instead of what we have, in addition to.