Articles like this run counter their purpose. As science progresses, it's increasingly possible to reproduce nature and more disturbingly when it does so we may never be able to tell the different, even with the full might of science, it may not be possible to prove whether this virus is natural or not.
> It is so effective at attaching to human cells that the researchers said the spike proteins were the result of natural selection and not genetic engineering.
> Yet in computer simulations, the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 don't seem to work very well at helping the virus bind to human cells.
This is an opinion, one that's not very scientific. This reads the same as the human eye is so complex it couldn't have arrived by chance, therefore it must have been created by some deity. This is known as hubris and being a know it all. They're saying if they don't know how someone could come up with that then no one could.
Their argument specifically is that it's beyond their capabilities. They do not speak for all biologists. For people who don't understand what these scientists are saying I have translated it into common English:
"We're the best and we couldn't have done this. Therefore it must be naturally occurring."
Further paraphrased: "Our modelling is deficient, therefore it's naturally occurring."
In other words, they're probably not very good scientists.
> The overall molecular structure of this virus is distinct from the known coronaviruses and instead most closely resembles
viruses found in bats and pangolins that had been little studied and never known to cause humans any harm.
> "If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,"
according to a statement from Scripps.
This is also an unfounded assumption. It's opinion and there's nothing scientific about it. One scientist's methodology, aims and objectives is not that of all scientists. You can even form a consensus but it only takes one deviant to overwhelm consensus. You need a 100% consensus of all scientists. One less and the theory fails.
Research into viruses may include studying what it likely to evolve and mutate next. It's possible to reach a point where what happens naturally and what is produced in the lab significantly overlap. Scientists are trying to keep one step ahead of viruses.
Scientists have a lot of ingenuity. Not all take the path of least resistance. Scientists looking ahead of the curve won't be looking only at known viruses that jumped species but might be looking at what else is in common species that might jump. It's the viruses we haven't heard off that we should be afraid of.
Not all scientists work on human viruses. Livestock and wildlife are also impacted by viruses including from those that jump species. Scientists are not only looking at humans.
If I were a scientist doing research into protecting livestock, humans included, I would be sampling wildlife broadly yet selectively as resources permit to catalogue as much as possible to explore the unknown. It makes perfect sense for scientists to be seeing what other coronaviruses are in bats and tracking those after others have already jumped from bats to humans. As a resourceful scientist, I might even go to the local food market to collect samples.
China has had moderate problems with maverick science. It's sometimes easier to make a name for yourself probing the unknown than the known. It does not require a sophisticated mind to work out to go to the source.
I suspect a significant growth in this field after coronavirus. Some scientists may consider vaccinating wildlife.
There isn't a single piece of genuine evidence in this article regarding whether the virus is natural or man-made.
This article proves that bias against it being artificially induced exists and is sufficiently strong enough for people to be misleading completely undermining itself. How can we trust anything journalists or scientists have to say about it? We can't. This article is proof of that.
Personally, I dismiss any headlines with terms such as "this is how" or "this is why". It's a disclaimer for being an opinion piece. It's commonly used with sponsored content.
I can't tell you either way if it naturally mutated or happened due to human intervention. Either is possible. It's not necessarily a case of if but when it would happen naturally as it already often does. It's wrong to assume that this could only happen by design or that it's even highly likely that it happened by design. It's also as wrong to assume that it can't happen through human intervention or that it's prohibitively unlikely.
My position is to generally assume it's natural causes. I cannot prove that to be the case but unless there's a reason otherwise then there's no purpose to assume it to be man-made. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the idea nor investigate it. In cases like this we do need to keep an open mind and an open eye.
Articles such as this only serve one purpose: To cover it up.
If there's nothing to cover it up then why cover it up? When you try to hide it with fallacious arguments then that itself creates a large amount of suspicion. What is the motivation for it? Why make out that it's a fact there's been no human intervention when we don't know deliberately using arguments likely to seduce the layman and stun the less intelligent into submission but that are completely and utterly invalid?
The consequence of it arising through human intervention is that we learn, take common sense precautions and move on. It's a sad fact that we're at the threshold where epidemiologists will have to consider both natural and unnatural origins.
Unpleasant though it might be its also possible for such an outbreak to be a deliberate act. There are many people who believe life would be better with less over population with the weak being the obvious choice. A lack of regulation of bio-research and genetic engineering should be a general concern to everyone.
Sometimes when people want to murder someone, they will try to make it look like natural causes. It may even fool everyone. If someone were to engineer an outbreak to achieve a practical purpose as a calculated act then you could expect it to appear either as natural or an accident.