[ceejayoz]

> If you were to find a close enough genetic match to a strain known to be in a lab, that would indeed constitute strong evidence.

In two possible directions. You'd still need additional evidence demonstrating it was lab --> nature, not nature --> lab.

> Now the "debunked article" cites 89% similarity to a published strain, but that's hardly a smoking gun.

Right, and virologists say citing 89% similarity is bogus, as that's actually substantial difference in genomes. It's evidence in the opposite direction asserted by the paper.

[eloff]

> In two possible directions. You'd still need additional evidence demonstrating it was lab --> nature, not nature --> lab.

Yes.

> Right, and virologists say citing 89% similarity is bogus, as that's actually substantial difference in genomes.

The same virologists that were quick to say 96% similarity to the alleged previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is significant? Is 89 to 96% such a big leap, or are they trying to have it both ways?