I don't think it's "dangerous" to acknowledge that it is possible the Coronavirus was grown in a lab.

It is extremely unlikely that the virus was grown in a lab, because it's unlikely anyone has the technology to create a virus quite like this one.

The last decade has given us some pretty good illustrations of how it can be dangerous to give credence to baseless conspiracy theories.

Logically and epistemically sound thinking is what the world needs more of, not less.

I presume you're not a big fan of conspiracy theories - well, a big part of where they come from is the media doing something similar to what you're complaining about, stating what might be true, as unequivocally true. It would also be interesting to know how much of the polarization in society can be attributed to the fantasy world the media projects into people's minds using these techniques.

You have it backwards. That would prove that it was made in a lab. How do you prove that it wasn't made in a lab?

Ohhh ad hominem attacks and implying that people who disagree with you are bots.

So what you said literally does not make sense. I think you are saying that there are long subsections of genetic sequences that are used as markers? But as you have not actually cited anything we only have a one sentence explanation of your understand of something. Long is ambiguous, as is not found in nature. Hell even markers can be vague.

Long sequences of genes not found in nature would be evidence that it is a lab-grown virus, but how could you prove that it is NOT a lab-grown virus? The absence of those genes doesn't prove that it wasn't made by a very clever lab.

I understand your point but don’t see how it relates to the example we were discussing which has a paper discussing its markers.

Numerous research studies talking about the non natural sequences of marker genes

Sooo the irony of responding to [citation needed] with claims that there infact multiple unnamed studies is just lost on you I take?

I’ll share whatever stories I please.