Evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 hasn't naturally evolved

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Also, according to theLancet Commission, COVID-19 may have escaped from U.S. bio lab:

I don't believe it escaped. Harvard Professor Lieber allowed China to take it.
www.justice.gov...
Obiden had him released this year!

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Major Covid report suggests virus could have leaked from a US lab

The Lancet’s paper said it is ‘feasible’ that Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a natural spillover or a lab incident, but elements provoke backlash

The Lancet is facing a backlash after a major Covid-19 Commission report suggested the disease may have leaked from a laboratory in the United States.

Published on Wednesday, the paper said it remains “feasible” that Sars-Cov-2 emerged from either a natural spillover or a laboratory incident, and called for the introduction of more safeguards to reduce the risk of either eventuality.

But the report, the result of two years of work, also suggested American researchers could be culpable. As well as mentioning facilities in Wuhan, it noted that “independent researchers have not yet investigated” US labs, and said the National Institutes of Health has “resisted disclosing details” of its work.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

So he did say it?

No, he did not say that the SARS-CoV-2 virus "looks engineered" or anything definitely of that sort.

He did, on several occasions, definitely say the diametric opposite, that it is extremely unlikely that it was engineered..

You are conveniently disregarding the part where Andersen and his colleagues have said that they find the genome of SARS-CoV-2 inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. This is a very good hint that the virus may have been engineered. The idea of course is entrained in my article which discusses the possibility of the virus being a result of a gain of function research outcome.

In his paper Andersen says something else and it had brought up the hypothesis that the virus existed already among us for a good period of time. For which of course there is no evidence and I can't see anywhere anything remotely touching on this area or claiming that the virus existed already prior to the pandemic. It's more likely that had been engineered than it was with us for all these years.

Did you notice that Anderson called it evolutionary 'theory', not evolutionary science, or evolutionary laws, or evolutionary process?

Perhaps the problem is that you seem to have assumed that evolutionary theory is itself perfect and infallible.

The Cambrian Explosion is contrary to evolutionary theory. The observed rapid rise of new species, especially in man-made environments, is contrary to evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not explain horizontal genetic transfer (which is especially prevalent in viral genomics), or punctuated equilibrium, or a host of ways genetic change has been observed to come about.

I believe Anderson was making a point about the inability of evolutionary theory to explain normal biology, rather than about the possibility of an artificial source of the virus.

Anderson is a scientist with hands-on experience in the matter, and therefore there are things that he is cognizant of, that you aren't.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Answering one by one the questions.
For some reason I can't reply to your text directly. It has happened before.

You have made a series of arguments. One in relation to mutations. To determine the origin of a given virus one must know which viruses are genetically compatible. Genetic similarities and antigenic similarities as well as the virus genome are what determine potential candidates.

A good example and model for coronavirus zoonosis is OC43 which is genetically very similar to bovine virus BCoV. The jump was very likely made in around 1889 from cattle and this coincides with that Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. There is actually clinical data that I have linked above

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

And here from the journal of virology.

journals.asm.org...

And here

ec.europa.eu...

It explains well how coronaviruses jump from humans to animals. Note that natural selection after zoonosis isn't considered and no evidence exists that natural selection after zoonosis occured in both cases of OC43 and SARS-CoV-2. If zoonosis has happened and it hasn't been a result of a gain of function research.

OC43 is not SARS-CoV-2. Nor is it closely phylogenically related, other than being a coronavirus.

We do not have any knowledge that OC43 did not exist in human populations prior to the 1800's and we cannot say for certain that there was a zoonotic transfer from bovine source about that time. They are un-evidenced assumptions upon which some theories are built.

I think your line of argumentation has become absurd as you now suggest that we don't know anything about the history of all viruses that existed and caused pandemics. They may have existed long before they have caused disease, as you claimed. But there is no evidence for this hypothesis in any of the given viruses discussed such as OC43 or SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus.

As before I will emphasize that there is nothing into this and I haven't come across scientists who entertain this idea. They all regard it as a novel virus that has come as a result of natural selection in the animal host before zoonosis.

Interestingly there are two references on the paper you have linked (and I have done so sometime ago) about natural selection after zoonosis. But there are many more who have discussed the lab leak theory. Three of them are in the paper I have linked and others on different papers and articles.

Strangely enough you have called the findings afton the Journal of Biology as speculative when infect there is clinical evidence and molecular analysis. So it's better if you reconsider what is likely to be true and what is just a hypothesis.


journals.asm.org...

Molecular clock analysis of the spike gene sequences of BCoV and HCoV-OC43 suggests a relatively recent zoonotic transmission event and dates their most recent common ancestor to around 1890. An evolutionary rate in the order of 4 × 10−4 nucleotide changes per site per year was estimated. This is the first animal-human zoonotic pair of coronaviruses that can be analyzed in order to gain insights into the processes of adaptation of a nonhuman coronavirus to a human host, which is important for understanding the interspecies transmission events that led to the origin of the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak.

Clearly the above describes natural selection before zoonosis and the emergence of OC43 to coincide with the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic.

So, the molecular clock event analysis indicates the zoonosis event occurring a decade after the virus supposedly transitioned from cows to people?

It shows, at least, how incredibly inexact the science is, that the theory hangs upon. Or, perhaps, that the theory is actually wrong.

And once again, OC43 is not SARS-CoV-2.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Answering one by one the questions.
For some reason I can't reply to your text directly. It has happened before.

You have made a series of arguments. One in relation to mutations. To determine the origin of a given virus one must know which viruses are genetically compatible. Genetic similarities and antigenic similarities as well as the virus genome are what determine potential candidates.

A good example and model for coronavirus zoonosis is OC43 which is genetically very similar to bovine virus BCoV. The jump was very likely made in around 1889 from cattle and this coincides with that Russian 'Flu' Pandemic. There is actually clinical data that I have linked above

sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

And here from the journal of virology.

journals.asm.org...

And here

ec.europa.eu...

It explains well how coronaviruses jump from humans to animals. Note that natural selection after zoonosis isn't considered and no evidence exists that natural selection after zoonosis occured in both cases of OC43 and SARS-CoV-2. If zoonosis has happened and it hasn't been a result of a gain of function research.

OC43 is not SARS-CoV-2. Nor is it closely phylogenically related, other than being a coronavirus.

We do not have any knowledge that OC43 did not exist in human populations prior to the 1800's and we cannot say for certain that there was a zoonotic transfer from bovine source about that time. They are un-evidenced assumptions upon which some theories are built.

I think your line of argumentation has become absurd as you now suggest that we don't know anything about the history of all viruses that existed and caused pandemics. They may have existed long before they have caused disease, as you claimed. But there is no evidence for this hypothesis in any of the given viruses discussed such as OC43 or SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus.

As before I will emphasize that there is nothing into this and I haven't come across scientists who entertain this idea. They all regard it as a novel virus that has come as a result of natural selection in the animal host before zoonosis.

Interestingly there are two references on the paper you have linked (and I have done so sometime ago) about natural selection after zoonosis. But there are many more who have discussed the lab leak theory. Three of them are in the paper I have linked and others on different papers and articles.

Strangely enough you have called the findings afton the Journal of Biology as speculative when infect there is clinical evidence and molecular analysis. So it's better if you reconsider what is likely to be true and what is just a hypothesis.


journals.asm.org...

Molecular clock analysis of the spike gene sequences of BCoV and HCoV-OC43 suggests a relatively recent zoonotic transmission event and dates their most recent common ancestor to around 1890. An evolutionary rate in the order of 4 × 10−4 nucleotide changes per site per year was estimated. This is the first animal-human zoonotic pair of coronaviruses that can be analyzed in order to gain insights into the processes of adaptation of a nonhuman coronavirus to a human host, which is important for understanding the interspecies transmission events that led to the origin of the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak.

Clearly the above describes natural selection before zoonosis and the emergence of OC43 to coincide with the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic.

So, the molecular clock event analysis indicates the zoonosis event occurring a decade after the virus supposedly transitioned from cows to people?

It shows, at least, how incredibly inexact the science is, that the theory hangs upon. Or, perhaps, that the theory is actually wrong.

And once again, OC43 is not SARS-CoV-2.

No you are mistaken here. Clearly in the article I linked from the Journal of Virology the zoonosis event coincides with the onset of the Russian 'Flu' Pandemic and this is well recorded in all the links I have provided. Around 1889-1890

Something very similar has happened with SARS-CoV-2 if zoonosis has taken place without human interference. It's when the novel virus is introduced in the population that causes the most harm, as time passes it becomes much less pathogenic which is true in the case of coronaviruses and most other if not all viruses.

From the same article (which I recommend as it's a good read) OC43 is now causing between 10% and 30% of common colds. We have adapted to each other over the last 132 years. Same is happening with SARS-CoV-2.

In the last week ending the 13th of October there were 63,520 new cases recorded in the UK (as an example I have given to someone else who if from England). There were also 420 deaths. This gives a case fatality rate of around 0.66%. The infection fatality rate though is much lower as those who are asymptomatic have not been factored together with those who have been infected developed minor symptoms and never got tested. I would say around 0.3%.

www.google.com... -mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1

SARS-CoV-2 has very similar disease characteristics with OC43. It has very similar infection of fatality rates and affects disproportionately the elderly and clinically vulnerable populations.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

There are letters from some of Faucci's colleagues who question from very early during the pandemic the claim that COVID-19 evolved naturally.

We have documents proving COVID-19 was developed to be more lethal and infectious to humans, which was the goal from the start.

Obama put a moratorium on Gain of Function research in the U.S., and instead with the help of Faucci the main research to make COVID-19 more lethal and infectious to humans was transferred to Wuhan, China. Not sure if at any time the research was brought back to the U.S., but the original SARS/CoV2 escaped from Wuhan, China. At least that's what the evidence seems to point out.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

So he did say it?

No, he did not say that the SARS-CoV-2 virus "looks engineered" or anything definitely of that sort.

He did, on several occasions, definitely say the diametric opposite, that it is extremely unlikely that it was engineered..

You are conveniently disregarding the part where Andersen and his colleagues have said that they find the genome of SARS-CoV-2 inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. This is a very good hint that the virus may have been engineered. The idea of course is entrained in my article which discusses the possibility of the virus being a result of a gain of function research outcome.

In his paper Andersen says something else and it had brought up the hypothesis that the virus existed already among us for a good period of time. For which of course there is no evidence and I can't see anywhere anything remotely touching on this area or claiming that the virus existed already prior to the pandemic. It's more likely that had been engineered than it was with us for all these years.

Did you notice that Anderson called it evolutionary 'theory', not evolutionary science, or evolutionary laws, or evolutionary process?

Perhaps the problem is that you seem to have assumed that evolutionary theory is itself perfect and infallible.

The Cambrian Explosion is contrary to evolutionary theory. The observed rapid rise of new species, especially in man-made environments, is contrary to evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not explain horizontal genetic transfer (which is especially prevalent in viral genomics), or punctuated equilibrium, or a host of ways genetic change has been observed to come about.

I believe Anderson was making a point about the inability of evolutionary theory to explain normal biology, rather than about the possibility of an artificial source of the virus.

Anderson is a scientist with hands-on experience in the matter, and therefore there are things that he is cognizant of, that you aren't.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. From the beginning to the end...


www.nhm.ac.uk...

Evolution is not a linear process. That's what the Cambrian Explosion indicates and it doesn't contradict evolution as a process. So what you are saying isn't true. There is no reason why we should expect evolution to take place at a constant rate or let's say gradually and slowly.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Asmodeus3

There are letters from some of Faucci's colleagues who question from very early during the pandemic the claim that COVID-19 evolved naturally.

We have documents proving COVID-19 was developed to be more lethal and infectious to humans, which was the goal from the start.

Obama put a moratorium on Gain of Function research in the U.S., and instead with the help of Faucci the main research to make COVID-19 more lethal and infectious to humans was transferred to Wuhan, China. Not sure if at any time the research was brought back to the U.S., but the original SARS/CoV2 escaped from Wuhan, China. At least that's what the evidence seems to point out.

This hypothesis is highly entertained in the paper I have linked in the opening page i.e gain of function research with product SARS-CoV-2.

I am aware of the various sources and discussions but are you particularly referring to some them? And if yes which sources are you citing? You could post some of them here.

pubs.acs.org...#


Molecular Biology Clues Portray SARS-CoV-2 as a Gain-of-Function Laboratory Manipulation of Bat CoV RaTG13

Genomic analyses (3) show that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera, with most of its sequence identical to that of the bat CoV RaTG13, except for the receptor binding domain (RBD), which is almost identical to that of a pangolin (Manis javanica) CoV and has been optimized to bind the ACE2 receptor in human cells. Such gain-of-function chimeras can in principle arise via natural recombination, but that would be unlikely in this case. The natural recombination would require that the viruses from bat and pangolin infected the same cell in the same organism simultaneously, a rather improbable event considering the low population density of pangolins, the dearth of CoV-infected specimens in their natural populations, and the fact that CoV RATG13 does not have significant affinity for the pangolin ACE2, and therefore is unlikely to penetrate the infected pangolin cell.


Gain-of-function recombinations of coronaviruses have been ongoing in the laboratory for more than a decade. As early as 2007, the group headed by Zheng-li Shi from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) created a series of “bat-man” CoV chimeric spike proteins to enable CoVs to jump from one species to another and model “spillover effects” that could trigger a pandemic. Shi’s goal was to turn the bat CoVs into huACE2-binding molecules, that is, to design promoters of human infection.

With regard to the recent history of these gain-of-function manipulations of coronaviruses, a U.S. NIH funded $3.7 million grant was approved by Trump’s COVID-19 advisor Anthony Fauci in 2015. The gain-of-function research was outsourced to the WIV, which remains at the center of scrutiny with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic.

www.science.org...

A very good article and a nice read