>>The deeper you dip into the "scientists are tinkering with
>>viruses" meme the deeper you get into assertions that we
>know
>>as incontrovertible facts to be untrue.
>
>are you claiming that current scientific techniques are
>incapable of editing the genes (or selectively breeding,
>fostering certain mutations) of a virus in a way that makes it
>more deadly to humans? (even as an unintended consequence). i
>do not think this is true.


The genome is just a series of numbers and there are simple statistical tests of how likely a mutation might have come through random processes. Manual genomic editing implants large continuous segments into a preexisting external genome. Random mutation arises from transcription errors and other processes that raise, rather than lower, the entropy of the string.

The fact that these tests have not been able to favor a genomic editing hypothesis also means that these mutations were entirely consistent with natural variation, which in turn means that either it happened naturally or it would have happened naturally very soon anyway.