Your first item is just a dumb misunderstanding of basic terminology. Recombinant doesn't necessarily mean man-made. It literally just means anything involving a combination of different DNA, whether that occurs naturally or artificially.
The second item is true but completely unrelated.
The third item was thoroughly debunked by a hundred real scientists the day it was posted. The paper had never passed peer review, and was retracted by the authors from the preprint server it was posted on the next day.
You should stop talking to your friend, who is an idiot. Frankly, this post is embarrassing, and you were right to use an alt.
Later it contrasts the word "recombinant" with natural recombination:
"Recombinant DNA differs from genetic recombination in that the former results from artificial methods in the test tube, while the latter is a normal biological process that results in the remixing of existing DNA sequences in essentially all organisms."
Can you give a reference in English that uses "recombinant" about any natural process? However it could be a translation error, so perhaps recombinant means artificial in English (per the reference I just gave) whereas perhaps the source they translated just mentions it is "genetic recombination" (not recombinant).
The Wikipedia article uses "laboratory method" and "artificial methods in the test tube" as explicitly contrasted with normal biological processes.
Just looking for a reference that this is not so.
-
By the way the news you confirmed - i.e. "Chinese scientist made GMO human babies" IMO is much more salacious and spectacular than the news you debunked, so I am not sure why you took this tone with me.
It would be like if you debunked chemtrails and called me an idiot for asking you about it, while incidentally confirming that space aliens visited Earth but saying this has nothing to do with chemtrails. To my ears the idea of GMO babies, which you confirmed were being made in China, is way more outlandish than a GMO virus.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
The second item is true but completely unrelated.
The third item was thoroughly debunked by a hundred real scientists the day it was posted. The paper had never passed peer review, and was retracted by the authors from the preprint server it was posted on the next day.
You should stop talking to your friend, who is an idiot. Frankly, this post is embarrassing, and you were right to use an alt.