There is still no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (10.1002/bies.202100137)

Bioessays 43 (12):2100194 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The causative agent of COVID‐19 SARS‐CoV‐2 has led to over 4 million deaths worldwide. Understanding the origin of this coronavirus is important for the prevention of future outbreaks. The dominant point of view that the virus transferred to humans either directly from bats or through an intermediate mammalian host has been challenged by Segreto and Deigin, who claim that the genome of SARS‐CoV‐2 has certain features suggestive of its artificial creation. Following their response to our commentary, here we continue the discussion of the proposed arguments for this hypothesis. We show that neither the existence of a furin cleavage site in SARS‐CoV‐2, nor the presence of specific sequences within the nucleotide insertion encoding that site are evidence for intelligent design. We also explain why existing genetic data, viral diversity and past human history suggest that a natural origin of the virus is the most likely scenario. Genetic evidence suggesting otherwise is yet to be presented.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,907

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

“Extraordinary Evidence” Replication Effort.Marissa E. Little & Scott R. Little - 2010 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 23 (4).
Dodging a Bullet: WHO, SARS, and the Successful Management of Infectious Disease.Evan S. Michelson - 2005 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 25 (5):379-386.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-11-21

Downloads
12 (#1,109,823)

6 months
1 (#1,508,101)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?