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.
You just said it yourself:
there is no evidence that the virus was made in a lab. You're arguing that there are ways in which it
could have been made in a lab and we can't tell the difference. I'm not so sure about that, yet you are -- for reasons beyond me. Nobody else seems to be claiming that except for your blog published to Zerohedge, which made several other claims that can easily be debunked.
There is more evidence that it came from the wild than from a lab. Introducing unfounded, poorly researched "could have" scenarios does nothing to sway me in the direction of your claim that it is "likely a bio-weapon."