Quote from: nutildah on March 25, 2020, 05:55:46 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 25, 2020, 05:26:12 PM

That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction.

OK, well, its not identical then, is it? Generally speaking, when man is controlling something, its not regarded as a natural process.

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 25, 2020, 05:26:12 PM

The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature.

I'm not so sure about that. I know enough about the issue to understand that I can't know that for sure, one way or the other. I also see no reason to cling to a 1% possibility that something _could have_ happened instead of the remaining 99% that it didn't.

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 25, 2020, 05:26:12 PM

So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What?

No, I never said that. I just think its highly unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence that it was, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes.

You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise.