I don't know what you mean by "man made" or "created". The origin of the vast majority of the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was a bat virus. If that makes it automatically natural in your view, you're correct by definition, but only because your definition of natural includes most modifications that could have been done in a lab.
Directed evolution in a lab (e.g. serial passage in humanized mice, or even captive bats) would be one thing. Would you consider that "man made" or "created", or is it natural?
Small genome sequence edits for experimental purposes would be another type of modification. Would you consider that "man made" or "created", or still natural?
Full genetic synthesis base pair by base pair is more difficult (longer sequences become much more difficult), but as I understand it is technologically possible... barely. If someone takes the genome from a natural virus genome sequence and synthesizes it that way in a lab, possibly with minor edits, would that be "man-made" or "created", or still natural?
Directed evolution in a lab (e.g. serial passage in humanized mice, or even captive bats) would be one thing. Would you consider that "man made" or "created", or is it natural?
Small genome sequence edits for experimental purposes would be another type of modification. Would you consider that "man made" or "created", or still natural?
Full genetic synthesis base pair by base pair is more difficult (longer sequences become much more difficult), but as I understand it is technologically possible... barely. If someone takes the genome from a natural virus genome sequence and synthesizes it that way in a lab, possibly with minor edits, would that be "man-made" or "created", or still natural?