It is computer generated. The fake 'virus' has NEVER been isolated or sequenced in REAL life because it is a SIMULATION. In SILICO. Therefor they can make it end in 33 a sequence. freemasonry.
Everything is possible. The question is, “how probable is it that this would occur due to random processes”.
I don’t have a background in this field but it certainly looks suspicious. I’d be interested to hear from someone in the field what the probability of this occurring would be. Interestingly, it could conclusively be calculated for the subset of species that we have genomic data on. In other words, it’s a question scientists could answer, if they had the desire.
Okay, now translate it for the people. Would a scientist conclude that something with that level of probability occurred through natural processes, or that an intelligent agent was involved?
It is computer generated. The fake 'virus' has NEVER been isolated or sequenced in REAL life because it is a SIMULATION. In SILICO. Therefor they can make it end in 33 a sequence. freemasonry.
Everything is possible. The question is, “how probable is it that this would occur due to random processes”.
I don’t have a background in this field but it certainly looks suspicious. I’d be interested to hear from someone in the field what the probability of this occurring would be. Interestingly, it could conclusively be calculated for the subset of species that we have genomic data on. In other words, it’s a question scientists could answer, if they had the desire.
In a simple sense and assuming a simple random distribution, 3.4x10^-21 or 0.00000000000000000034.
(I may stand corrected.)
Okay, now translate it for the people. Would a scientist conclude that something with that level of probability occurred through natural processes, or that an intelligent agent was involved?
What a scientist would conclude? That would depend on who is signing the check.
More seriously though, absent some process that might explain it (I know little about genetics) it would be safe to round the odds to 0% chance.
Lol. Excellent point. I should have been more specific regarding the nature of the scientist.