zlacker

>>BellLa+(OP)
1. There is no viral backbone anyone knows of which would have been used in this research

2. There is no spike protein anyone knows of which would have been used in this research

3. The PRRAR furin cleavage site is not one humans would have tried it is unlike any other known furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses

4. There are now many known related sarbecoviruses which have been found with furin cleavage sites

5. Furin cleavage sites have independently evolved in multiple different branches of coronaviruses, probably a dozen times that we know of now.

6. The furin cleavage site is short and can easily happen through recombination with another virus due to coinfection.

7. This is very likely what happened due to infection with the SARS-CoV-2 ancestor and an HKU9-like virus.

It is not particularly suspicious that the thing which we were worried about happening and causing a zoonotic spillover event is the thing which actually happened.

>>lamont+A51
All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? Can you conclusively rule out that this virus wasn’t engineered (and then maliciously covered up) in a lab? The reason this approach is important is because the stakes here are higher. This means people who should have been careful weren’t, and are responsible for the death of millions and they’re happy continuing to cover up their part in it.

The more important part here is an investigation on the origins of the virus is more about beurecracy than the actual science so unless you can conclusively prove that this virus could have never been engineered by a human you should stop bringing “improbability” of all of these processes as why we should trust these scientists.

>>ramraj+Wn1
That is the wrong way to go about it. You have to approach it as you would in legal theory. Innocence is not something that is proven. The verdict is guilty or not guilty (which means evidence wasn't sufficient to convict, but that doesn't mean the defendant is innocent). In this case you have to prove that the virus was engineered by providing evidence.

>All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way?

What you're proposing isn't science and it isn't what 'real scientists' do.

>>passiv+4z1
Depends on which real scientists you are talking about.

I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers.

I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded.

It doesn't seem the first flavor is the one you are talking about.

>>blix+qE1
>I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers.

Oh sure, I consider the possibility that there might be aliens out there. However, we both know that this is very different than considering the possibility that Obama was a reptilian. In any case, scientific frontiers are areas of active research. So yeah, lets go spelunking!

>I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded.

That is an all too common human flaw :)

>>passiv+MJ1
I'd argue there is more evidence for the lab leak theory than either aliens or reptilians; it's a tremendously low bar. There is not even flimsy circumstantial evidence for aliens, yet many people believe.

Yes knowingly abandoning the princinples of science in order to acquire money is quite the flaw. For whatever reason it is basically non-existent among grad students, but not uncommon among successful professors. It's almost like our institutions select for and reward this behavior.