Quote from: tvbcof on March 22, 2020, 04:10:56 AM

Quote from: nutildah on March 22, 2020, 03:58:30 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 22, 2020, 02:14:01 AM

It is a fact, purposely infecting test animals and selecting for the most virulent mutations would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from natural mutation, because it is nothing more than accelerating a natural process and selecting for desirable traits.

Quote from: nutildah on March 21, 2020, 03:55:15 PM

From the abstract cited in your article:

Quote

...We genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.

"Site-directed mutagenesis" is NOT a natural process. Convenient how they left that tidbit out.

https://international.neb.com/applications/cloning-and-synthetic-biology/site-directed-mutagenesis

Quote

SDM is an in vitro procedure that uses custom designed oligonucleotide primers to confer a desired mutation in a double-stranded DNA plasmid.

Logical fallacy alert:

- oligonucleotied primers is a method of inducing mutagensis

- no sign of oligonucleotide primers

- therefore, no mutagensis

Quote from: nutildah on March 22, 2020, 03:58:30 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 22, 2020, 02:14:01 AM

There is no evidence that this has been excluded as a possibility, and any claims otherwise are assumptions, not based on observable empirical data.

You really don't understand concepts of proof and evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the virus was created in a lab. It's not anybody's job to prove that its not. Just flinging improbabilities out there and then saying they are likely is nothing but you propelling baseless conspiracy theories.

If thing A is in common use and is a million times more probable than thing B, the burden is kind of on thing B to prove that that is what happened.

That is especially the case when thing B is actively and strenuously promoted by groups associated with thing A should thing A be what actually happened.

You just aren't paying attention. TS's article referenced that study as "proof" that an airborne transmissable virus can be created in a lab without using genetic engineering. Meanwhile the study DID use genetic engineering -- that part was just left out of the article.

The other part of what you said makes no sense at all. You continue to inject pseudoscience and pseudologic into the debate, complicating things for no rational reason. Which is why I'm putting you back on ignore.