Refuting Creationism - The 'Smoking Gun' of Life On Early Mars

Daybreak at the Gale Crater on Mars where organic material was found.

Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

Mount Sharp in the centre of Gale Crater where organic material was found by Curiosity Rover

Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

Organic material from Mars reveals the likely origin of life’s building blocks – University of Copenhagen

Those creationists who understand the implication for their superstition will be dreading the discovery of evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe, so to have it discovered on our neighbouring planet in the solar system will be doubly worrying for them.

The reason for this fear is that they have invested so much of their argument for a magic creator in a proclaimed vast unlikelihood to the point of impossibility, of inorganic elements forming themselves into organic molecules - the basic building blocks of living systems. Combine that with their false dichotomy fallacy which says the only possibility is that their locally popular god did it, and you have the basis of the creationist argument from 'impossible' abiogenesis.

So, discovering that it happened on Mars shows that not only is it not impossible, nor even highly unlikely, but it happens when the conditions are right as easily as mixing hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide gives table salt (\(\small \text{HCl} + \text{NaOH} \rightarrow \text{NaCl} + \text{H}_2\text{O}\)). No magic is needed, and it can all be accounted for with the basic laws of chemistry and physics.

Of course, those creationists who have been preparing for this eventuality will simply declare that their unproven magic creator did it there too. Sadly for them this just leaves them to explain why a supposedly omniscient, super-intelligent creator would create the building blocks for organic life on a planet so singularly unsuitable for living systems as Mars?

What would be the consequences for creationism if the building blocks for living systems were found on Mars? The discovery of the building blocks for living systems on Mars would have significant implications for various perspectives on creationism, particularly in how they interpret the origin and distribution of life. Here are some potential consequences:

1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC):
   • Challenge to Beliefs: YEC proponents typically believe that Earth and life were created relatively recently (within the last 10,000 years) and uniquely by divine action. Finding the building blocks of life on Mars could challenge the view that Earth is the exclusive site of creation.
   • Reinterpretation of Evidence: YEC advocates might argue that these building blocks were either created by God on Mars or arrived there via panspermia from Earth, thus maintaining that life is still unique to God's creation on Earth.
2. Old Earth Creationism (OEC):
   • Expanded View of Creation: OEC proponents, who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth but believe that life was created by God over billions of years, might see the discovery as evidence of a broader scope of divine creation. They might argue that God created life or its precursors not only on Earth but also elsewhere in the universe.
   • Integration with Science: OEC might integrate this discovery into their worldview, suggesting that the building blocks of life are a part of God's creative design and could be expected to be found throughout the universe.
3. Intelligent Design (ID):
   • Support for Design Hypothesis: Proponents of ID, who argue that life is too complex to have arisen without an intelligent cause, might interpret the discovery of life's building blocks on Mars as further evidence of a purposeful design by an intelligent entity. They could argue that life's building blocks being present on multiple planets supports the idea of a designed and purposeful universe.
   • New Arguments for Design: ID proponents might develop new arguments or refine existing ones to account for the distribution of life's building blocks, using this discovery to bolster their claims about the prevalence of design in the universe.
4. Progressive Creationism:
   • Alignment with Existing Beliefs: Progressive creationists, who believe that God intervened at various points to create new forms of life, might view the presence of life's building blocks on Mars as part of God's creative process. They could argue that these building blocks were placed there as part of a divine plan that includes multiple planets.
   • Divine Purpose and Planning: This perspective might emphasize the idea that God's creative work extends beyond Earth, highlighting a divine purpose that includes the entire cosmos.
5. Theistic Evolution:
   • Compatibility with Science: Theistic evolutionists, who believe that God works through the process of evolution, would likely see the discovery as consistent with their view that the natural processes observed by science are the means through which God creates life. They might argue that finding life's building blocks on Mars is evidence of the widespread potential for life in the universe, as part of God's natural order.
   • Reinforcement of Universal Creation: This perspective might interpret the discovery as reinforcing the idea that life is a fundamental aspect of God's creation and that the potential for life exists throughout the universe.

In summary, while the discovery of the building blocks for living systems on Mars would challenge some specific creationist views, it would also offer an opportunity for reinterpretation and integration within other creationist frameworks. The response would vary depending on the particular beliefs and theological interpretations of each creationist perspective.

Is it the act of an intelligent creator to create the building blocks of life on a planet such as Mars which is singularly unsuitable for life as we know it to exist on?

The question of whether it is the act of an intelligent creator to create the building blocks of life on a planet such as Mars, which is currently unsuitable for life as we know it, can be approached from various perspectives, each influenced by different theological, philosophical, and scientific viewpoints. Here are several possible interpretations:

1. Testing Grounds for Life:
   • Perspective: Some might argue that an intelligent creator could place the building blocks of life on Mars as a kind of experiment or preparation for life that might develop under different conditions.
   • Rationale: This could be seen as a way for the creator to ensure that the building blocks of life are universally distributed, giving life the potential to arise in diverse environments, possibly under conditions that we do not yet fully understand or recognize.
2. Part of a Larger Plan:
   • Perspective: From a theological standpoint, the presence of life's building blocks on Mars might be interpreted as part of a grander divine plan that extends beyond our current understanding of habitability.
   • Rationale: Proponents of this view might suggest that Mars could have been more suitable for life in the past or could become suitable again in the future, or that these building blocks serve a purpose in ways that are not immediately apparent to us.
3. Evidence of Universal Design:
   • Perspective: Some advocates of intelligent design or creationism might see the widespread distribution of life's building blocks as evidence of a purposeful design by an intelligent creator.
   • Rationale: This perspective might hold that the creator designed the universe with the potential for life in various forms, and that the presence of these building blocks on Mars reflects the creator's intention for life to potentially arise or be studied in different environments.
4. Scientific Explanation with Theistic Interpretation:
   • Perspective: Theistic evolutionists or those who integrate science and faith might view the presence of life's building blocks on Mars as a natural consequence of the laws and processes set in motion by a creator.
   • Rationale: They might argue that life's building blocks are naturally distributed by processes such as asteroid impacts, comets, or interplanetary dust, which are part of the universe's design. This distribution could be seen as evidence of a universe finely tuned to produce and support life.
5. Philosophical and Existential Considerations:
   • Perspective: From a philosophical standpoint, the discovery might provoke questions about the nature of life and the conditions necessary for it, expanding our understanding of what it means for a planet to be "suitable" for life.
   • Rationale: This could lead to a broader consideration of life as a phenomenon that might not be confined to Earth-like conditions, suggesting that the creator's intentions might encompass a wider variety of life forms and habitats than we currently imagine.

In conclusion, the interpretation of an intelligent creator placing the building blocks of life on Mars depends heavily on one's worldview. Some may see it as a sign of a larger, incomprehensible plan or an evidence of a designed and purposeful universe, while others may integrate it into a scientific framework that does not necessarily require direct divine intervention. The suitability of Mars for life as we know it might be less relevant in these discussions than the broader implications of finding life's precursors beyond Earth.

In other words, it must be intelligently designed because it was designed by an intelligent designer? Is that a rational argument?

The argument that "it must be intelligently designed because it was designed by an intelligent designer" is an example of a circular argument. In logic, a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Here's a breakdown of why this is considered circular and why it may not be rational:

Structure of the Argument

1. Premise: The building blocks of life on Mars are intelligently designed.
2. Conclusion: Therefore, they were designed by an intelligent designer.

In this structure, the premise assumes what it is trying to prove (i.e., that the building blocks are intelligently designed).

Rational Evaluation

1. Begging the Question: This argument begs the question because it assumes the conclusion within the premise. For an argument to be rational and persuasive, it should provide independent support for its conclusion rather than assume it from the outset.
2. Lack of Independent Evidence: For the argument to be rational, it would need to provide independent evidence or reasoning to support the claim that the building blocks of life on Mars were designed by an intelligent designer. This might include evidence of complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes, specific patterns that indicate design, or other empirical data that suggest intelligent intervention.
3. Alternative Explanations: A rational argument should also consider and address alternative explanations. In this case, it should examine naturalistic explanations for the presence of life's building blocks on Mars, such as abiogenesis, panspermia, or chemical processes that could occur without intelligent intervention.

How to Make a Rational Argument for Intelligent Design

To construct a more rational argument for the intelligent design of the building blocks of life on Mars, one could:

1. Present Empirical Evidence: Provide specific examples of features or characteristics of the building blocks that strongly suggest design over natural processes. This might include irreducible complexity or specified complexity that natural processes cannot easily account for.
2. Demonstrate the Inadequacy of Natural Explanations: Show why natural processes (e.g., chemical evolution, random molecular interactions) are insufficient to account for the building blocks' presence and complexity.
3. Use Inference to the Best Explanation: Argue that intelligent design is the best explanation among competing hypotheses based on the evidence available. This involves comparing the explanatory power and scope of intelligent design versus naturalistic explanations.

Example of a Rational Argument

An example of a more rational argument might look like this:

1. Premise 1: The building blocks of life exhibit patterns and complexities (e.g., molecular structures, chirality) that are highly unlikely to arise through known natural processes.
2. Premise 2: Such patterns and complexities are best explained by the action of an intelligent cause, as they resemble known products of intelligence (e.g., human-engineered molecules).
3. Conclusion: Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the building blocks of life on Mars were designed by an intelligent cause.

This argument provides premises that can be independently evaluated and supports the conclusion with evidence rather than assuming it.

In summary, the assertion that "it must be intelligently designed because it was designed by an intelligent designer" is circular and not rational by itself. A rational argument would need to provide independent evidence and reasoning to support the conclusion of intelligent design.

Wouldn't one need to provide empirical evidence a priori that an entity capable of designing anything actually exists, otherwise is should be pared away using Occam's Razor.

Yes, according to principles of logical reasoning and empirical investigation, providing empirical evidence that an entity capable of designing anything exists is essential for the argument of intelligent design to be robust. Additionally, Occam's Razor, which favors simpler explanations with fewer assumptions, would suggest that without such evidence, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer should be set aside in favor of naturalistic explanations that do not require the introduction of additional, unproven entities. Here’s a more detailed examination:

Empirical Evidence of an Intelligent Designer

To argue convincingly for intelligent design, one must:

1. Demonstrate the Existence of the Designer: Present empirical evidence or a logically coherent argument that an intelligent designer exists. This might include evidence from cosmology, biology, or other fields that point to the presence of a designing intelligence.
2. Show Capability and Action: Provide evidence that this designer has the capability to create life and has acted to do so. This would involve showing that the designer has the necessary attributes (such as intelligence, power, and intention) and has indeed performed acts of creation or design.

Application of Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a heuristic tool that helps to eliminate unnecessary assumptions:

1. Naturalistic Explanations: If naturalistic explanations (such as abiogenesis, chemical evolution, or panspermia) can account for the presence of life’s building blocks without invoking an intelligent designer, then these explanations are generally preferred. They do not require assuming the existence of an additional entity.
2. Parsimony: The principle of parsimony suggests that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. Therefore, if the existence of an intelligent designer is not empirically demonstrated and is not necessary to explain the phenomenon, it should be excluded from the explanation.

Example of Applying Occam's Razor

Consider two hypotheses to explain the presence of life’s building blocks on Mars:

1. Naturalistic Hypothesis: The building blocks of life are the result of chemical processes that occur naturally in the universe, possibly delivered via meteorites or formed through planetary processes.
2. Intelligent Design Hypothesis: An intelligent designer placed the building blocks of life on Mars.

Evaluation:

• Naturalistic Hypothesis: This requires the assumption that natural chemical processes can produce life’s building blocks, which is supported by scientific evidence and does not require additional assumptions about the existence of an intelligent entity.
• Intelligent Design Hypothesis: This requires the assumption of an intelligent designer, whose existence and capabilities must be independently verified. Without empirical evidence of such a designer, this hypothesis adds an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Using Occam’s Razor, the naturalistic hypothesis is preferred because it is simpler and relies on fewer assumptions.

Conclusion

For the intelligent design hypothesis to be considered rational and preferable:

1. Empirical Evidence Required: There must be empirical evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer capable of creating life’s building blocks.
2. Simplicity and Parsimony: In the absence of such evidence, the hypothesis should be set aside in favor of simpler, naturalistic explanations that do not require additional, unproven entities.

Therefore, without prior empirical evidence of an intelligent designer, the hypothesis of intelligent design is less favored by Occam's Razor compared to naturalistic explanations.

But find it they have, or at least the 'smoking gun' that shows the basic building blocks for organic molecules existed on the early Mars. How the team of scientists from the University of Copenhagen did so is the subject of an open access research aper in Nature Geoscience and a detailed news release from Copenhagen University.

Before continuing, any creationists preparing to dismiss this with their traditional 'God did it! parrot squawk would be well advided to read the panel on the right, especially the final section on a priori evidence and the use of Occam's Razor.

Organic material from Mars reveals the likely origin of life’s building blocks

---

Mars Two samples from Mars together deliver the "smoking gun" in a new study showing the origin of Martian organic material. The study presents solid evidence for a prediction made over a decade ago by University of Copenhagen researchers that could be key to understanding how organic molecules, the foundation of life, were first formed here on Earth.

---

In a meteor crater on the red planet, a solitary robot is moving about. Right now it is probably collecting soil samples with a drill and a robotic arm, as it has quite a habit of doing. NASA's Curiosity rover has been active on Mars as the extended arm of science for nearly 12 years, and it continues to make discoveries that surprise and challenge scientists' understanding of both Mars and our own world here on Earth.

Facts: Organic material

The sample found on Mars contains deposits of so-called organic material.

To laymen this may sound more exciting than it is. Organic material in a chemical context does not necessarily mean something living, as one might normally think. The term covers molecules that contain carbon and at least one other element and can easily exist without life. These molecules are rather the building blocks of life.

Most recently, the discovery of sedimentary organic material with particular properties has had many researchers scratching their heads. The properties of these carbon-based materials, in particular the ratio of its carbon isotopes, surprised researchers.

Organic materials with such properties, if found on Earth, would typically be a sign of microorganisms, but they can also be the result of non-biological, chemical processes. The find obviously had researchers scrambling for a clear answer, but nothing seemed to fit.

However, for the research collaboration behind a study published in Nature Geoscience, there has been little hair scratching and much enthusiasm.

In fact, the discovery on Mars provided the missing piece that made everything fall into place for this group of researchers from the University of Copenhagen and the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

As co-author and chemistry professor Matthew Johnson puts it, it is "the smoking gun" needed to confirm a decade old theory of his about so-called photolysis in Mars' atmosphere.

With the Curiosity sample, the new research is able to prove with reasonable certainty that the Sun broke down \(\small\ce{CO2}\) in the Martian atmosphere billions of years ago - as the old theory predicted. And that the resulting carbon monoxide gradually reacted with other chemicals in the atmosphere synthesizing complex molecules – and thus providing Mars with organic materials.

Facts: What is Photolysis

Photolysis means that the Sun's UV rays provide molecules with energy to perform a chemical transformation. According to the research this happened in the Martian atmosphere, where 20% of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) molecules there were split into oxygen and carbon monoxide.

In earlier research, Johnson and colleagues showed that carbon dioxide containing the carbon-12 isotope is photolysed more quickly than the heavier isotope carbon-13. Over time, \(\small\ce{CO}\) is produced that is depleted in \(\small\ce{^13C}\), and \(\small\ce{^13C}\) builds up in the remaining \(\small\ce{CO2}\). This results in so-called isotopic enrichment in \(\small\ce{CO2}\) and depletion in \(\small\ce{CO}\), like mirror images or each other or the two halves of a broken plate.

It is the fractionation ratio in carbon, which serves as evidence of photolysis in the two samples from Mars.

Such carbon-based complex molecules are the prerequisite of life, the building blocks of life one might say. So, this it is a bit like the old debate about which came first, the chicken or the egg. We show that the organic material found on Mars has been formed through atmospheric photochemical reactions - without life that is. This is the 'egg', a prerequisite of life. It still remains to be shown whether or not this organic material resulted in life on the Red Planet. Additionally because Earth, Mars and Venus had very similar \(\small\ce{CO2}\) rich atmospheres long ago when this photolysis took place, it can also prove important for our understanding of how life began on Earth.

Professor Matthew Johnson, co-author
Department of Chemistry
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Two pieces separated by 50 Million Kilometers – one puzzle solved

12 years ago Johnson and two colleagues used simulations based on quantum mechanics to determine what happens when a \(\small\ce{CO2}\) rich atmosphere is exposed to the UV-light of the Sun, in a process known as photolysis.

Facts: Isotopes Have Different Weights

Isotopes are variants of the same element that have different weights because the nucleus contains more or fewer neutrons.

Carbon has two stable isotopes - Normally, about 99% of carbon has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in its nucleus (\(\small\ce{^12C}\)). About 1% has 6 protons and 7 neutrons instead (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)). The ratio can serve as a chemical fingerprint revealing what reactions the carbon has undergone.

Photolysis favors carbon-12, and a high concentration of the isotope can therefore indicate this process.

Basically, on Mars around 20% of the \(\small\ce{CO2}\) is split into oxygen and carbon monoxide. But carbon has two stable isotopes: carbon-12 and carbon-13. Usually they are present in a ratio of one carbon-13 for every 99 carbon-12. However, photolysis works faster for the lighter carbon-12, so the carbon monoxide produced by photolysis has less carbon-13 (is depleted), and the left over \(\small\ce{CO2}\) has more (is enriched). Because of this, Johnson and his colleagues were able to make very precise predictions of the ratio of carbon isotopes after photolysis. And this gave them two distinctive fingerprints to look for. One of these was identified in a different Martian sample, years ago.

We actually have a piece of Mars here on Earth, which was knocked off that planet by a meteorite, and then became one itself, when it landed here on Earth. This meteorite, called Allan Hills 84001 for the place in Antarctica where it was found, contains carbonate minerals that form from \(\small\ce{CO2}\) in the atmosphere. The smoking gun here is that the ratio of carbon isotopes in it exactly matches our predictions in the quantum chemical simulations, but there was a missing piece in the puzzle. We were missing the other product of this chemical process to confirm the theory, and that's what we've now obtained.

Professor Matthew Johnson.

Extra Info: The Famous Mars Meteorite

The discovery of organic sediments on Mars with a low ratio of carbon-13 completes the puzzle of empirical evidence for the photolysis theory, since researchers already found the other part of that puzzle years ago in the famous meteorite, Allan Hills 84001. The meteorite contains carbonate with a heightened concentration of heavy carbon 13 isotopes.

Discovered in Antarctica 40 years ago by Roberta Score, the meteorite is believed to originate from the Red Planet and became particularly well known because it contains some deposits that led NASA researchers to announce in 1996 that they believed they had found traces of microscopic fossils of bacteria from Mars.

Today, the consensus is that these deposits are abiotic - that is, stemming from non-biological processes.

The carbon in the Allan Hills meteorite is enriched in carbon-13, which makes it the mirror image of the depletion in carbon-13 that has now been measured in the organic material found by Curiousity on Mars.

The new study has thus linked data from two samples, which researchers believe have the same origin in Mars' childhood but were found more than 50 million kilometers apart.

There is no other way to explain both the carbon-13 depletion in the organic material and the enrichment in the Martian meteorite, both relative to the composition of volcanic \(\small\ce{CO2}\) emitted on Mars, which has a constant composition, similar as for Earth’s volcanos, and serves as a baseline.

Professor Matthew Johnson.

Hope to find the same evidence on Earth

Because the organic material contains this isotopic “fingerprint” of where it came from, researchers are able to trace the source of the carbon in the organic material to the carbon monoxide formed by photolysis in the atmosphere. But this also reveals a lot about what happened to it in between.

Facts: The oxygen painted Mars red

Photolysis of a \(\small\ce{CO2}\) molecule yields carbon monoxide (\(\small\ce{CO}\)) and an oxygen atom (\(\small\ce{O}\)). On Mars, only carbon monoxide remains, which is transformed into the organic material found by the Curiosity rover.

But where the oxygen has gone is also no secret. The oxygen combines into \(\small\ce{O2}\), which interacts with iron on Mars' surface. The Red Planet is rust red due to oxidized iron.

This shows that carbon monoxide is the starting point for the synthesis of organic molecules in these kinds of atmospheres. So we have an important conclusion about the origin of life’s building blocks. Although so far only on Mars.

Professor Matthew Johnson.

Researchers hope to find the same isotopic evidence on Earth, but this has yet to happen, and it could be a much bigger challenge because our geological development has changed the surface significantly compared to Mars, Johnson explains.

It is reasonable to assume that the photolysis of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) was also a prerequisite for the emergence of life here on Earth, in all its complexity. But we have not yet found this “smoking gun” material here on Earth to prove that the process took place. Perhaps because Earth's surface is much more alive, geologically and literally, and therefore constantly changing. But it is a big step that we have now found it on Mars, from a time when the two planets were very similar.

Professor Matthew Johnson.

Extra info: Mars, Earth, and Venus Had the Same Atmosphere

According to researchers, Earth had approximately the same atmosphere as our neighboring planets Mars and Venus billions of years ago.

When the early planets Venus, Earth, and Mars eventually formed solid surfaces, researchers believe they began to release large amounts of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) from extreme volcanic activity. That's how they formed their first atmospheres with large concentrations of the gas. Oxygen had not yet become part of the atmosphere; this happened later on Earth, after the emergence of life.

The photolysis theory states that UV rays from the sun then start a chain of chemical reactions. A chain that starts with the breakdown of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) into carbon monoxide, which is the building block for a multitude of other chemical compounds.

Thus, with the help of the Sun, the foundation for the many carbon compounds and complex molecules we have today was formed - in the case of Earth, the foundation for life.

Since then the fate of the three planets has been significantly different. Earth's carbon dioxide reacted with our large amount of surface water and much of it deposited over time as carbonate rocks like limestone, leaving the atmosphere dominated by nitrogen, as we have today. Life arose, and microorganisms produced oxygen, which, among other things, created our ozone layer, while Mars and Venus still have very \(\small\ce{CO2}\)-dominant atmospheres today.

Professor Matthew Johnson.

Today, Venus has a very dense and toxic atmosphere primarily of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) which gives it a surface temperature of around 450 degrees Celsius. On Mars, the atmosphere has become much thinner compared to Earth's, and has left a desert landscape.

About the new study:

The study is published in Nature Geoscience and has just appeared in the journal's June issue. The following researchers have contributed to the new study:

From the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen:

Matthew S. Johnson and Johan A. Schmidt

From the Tokyo Institute of Technology:

Yuichiro Ueno, Xiaofeng Zang, Alexis Gilbert, Hiroyuki Kurokawa and Tomohiro Usui

From the University of Tokyo and the Royal Belgian Institute of Space Aeronomy:

Shohei Aoki

Abstract
Organic matter found in early Martian sediment may yield clues to the planet’s environmental conditions, prebiotic chemistry and habitability, but its origin remains unclear. Strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion in sedimentary organic matter at Gale crater was recently detected by the Curiosity rover. Although this enigmatic depletion remains debated, if correct, a mechanism to cause such strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion is required. Here we show from \(\small\ce{CO2}\) photolysis experiments and theoretical considerations that solar ultraviolet photolysis of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) in a reducing atmosphere can yield strongly (\(\small\ce{^13C}\))-depleted \(\small\ce{CO}\). We suggest that atmospheric synthesis of organic compounds from photolysis-produced \(\small\ce{CO}\) is a plausible mechanism to explain the source of isotopically depleted organic matter in early Martian sediments. Furthermore, this mechanism could explain (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) enrichment of early Martian \(\small\ce{CO2}\) without requiring long-term carbon escape into space. A mass balance model calculation using our estimated isotopic fractionation factor indicates the conversion of approximately 20% of volcanic \(\small\ce{CO2}\) emissions on early Mars into organics via \(\small\ce{CO}\), consistent with the available data for carbon isotopes of carbonate. Although alternative pathways for organic compound production have been proposed, our findings suggest that considerable amounts of organic matter may have been synthesized from \(\small\ce{CO}\) in a reducing early Martian atmosphere and deposited in sediments.

Main
Organic matter on Mars is important for understanding the habitability of the planet, prebiotic chemistry and the search for life in the universe. A series of analyses using the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument on board the Curiosity rover discovered and confirmed that there is sedimentary organic matter preserved in circa 3.5-billion-year-old water-lain sediment at the Gale crater on Mars^1,2,3,4. Furthermore, recent analysis of SAM data revealed that this organic matter has an enigmatic stable carbon isotope composition \(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) values [\(\small\equiv 1000 \left( \left( \frac{^{13}\text{C}}{^{12}\text{C}} \right)_{\text{sample}} \bigg/ \left( \frac{^{13}\text{C}}{^{12}\text{C}} \right)_{\text{VPDB}} - 1 \right)\)] from −137‰ to +22‰) (refs. ^5,6,7,8,9), some of which are strongly depleted in (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) to an extent never found in Earth’s sedimentary rocks⁶. Although some in situ isotope analyses have been contaminated by a terrestrial material mixed into the SAM instrument^{3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}, even taking this into account, it appears that several early Martian sediments contain organic carbon with \(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) values at least less than −70‰ (ref. 10) and possibly down to −137 ± 8‰ (refs. ^6,8) (Supplementary Note provide details). The origin of this strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion remains uncertain but may arise from cosmic, biological or abiological processes^4,5,6. Interplanetary dust may include carbon particles with strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion¹¹ and might have accumulated in the sediment⁶, although the signal from outside the solar system would easily be diluted if indigenous carbon sources were available from biotic or abiotic processes on Mars. Some biological metabolic pathways, particularly methanotrophy, can induce large isotopic fractionation, but it is difficult to explain \(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) < −100‰ in light of known biological fractionation factors⁶. In principle, the organic matter in early Martian sediment could be due to abiotic reactions such as Fischer–Tropsch-type reactions^2,6 or electro-chemical reduction of \(\small\ce{CO2}\)^5,6,12, but none of these mechanisms are known to produce the large carbon isotopic fractionations observed (ref. ⁶ and references therein). An alternative source of organic matter is atmospheric synthesis^{5,6,13,14,15,16}. Theoretically, atmospheric photochemistry under the appropriate conditions may produce a large carbon isotopic fractionation^14,15,17. Ab initio calculations using time-dependent wavepacket propagation of the absorption cross sections of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) isotopologues¹⁷ predicted that solar UV photolysis of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) yields strongly (\(\small\ce{^13C}\))-depleted \(\small\ce{CO}\), potentially lower than −100‰ (Fig. 1). However, the large isotope effect has not yet been verified by laboratory experiment^17,18.

Fig. 1: Wavelength-dependent isotopic fractionation of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) photolysis.

Preferential dissociation of \(\small\ce{^12CO2}\) against \(\small\ce{^13CO2}\) is expected in a wavelength region from 170 nm to 200 nm, which is responsible for solar UV photolysis of \(\small\ce{CO2}\). a, Actinic UV spectra. Red: solar spectrum from ref. ⁴³. Blue: calculated spectrum at 30 km altitude (alt.) of model early Mars (10 mbar \(\small\ce{CO2}\) at surface) (Methods). Black: measured UV spectrum of the high pressure Xe lamp used in the laboratory experiment (Methods). b, Calculated absorption cross sections of \(\small\ce{^12CO2}\) (black) and \(\small\ce{^13CO2}\) (orange) at 295 K from ref. ¹⁷. c, Calculated isotope effect (1,000 ln α₁) as a function of wavelength for the 295 K absorption spectra. Results were averaged over a 1 nm (black) and 5 nm (red) windows. Oxygen isotopic fractionation and its implications for Mars atmosphere were given elsewhere¹⁷.

Explaining the origin of the strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion becomes even more problematic considering that the early carbonate precipitate in the approximately 4 billion years old (4 Ga) Martian meteorite ALH 84001 was rather enriched in (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) (up to +55‰) (refs. ^19,20,21) relative to Mars mantle carbon (\(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) = −25 ± 5‰) (ref. ²²) (Methods). For present-day Mars, the (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) enrichment of atmospheric \(\small\ce{CO2}\) (\(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) = +46 ± 4‰) (ref. ²³) has been thought to result from carbon escape into space^14,24,25 through the 4-billion-year history of Mars. However, even assuming the 4 Ga carbonate were in equilibrium with the atmospheric \(\small\ce{CO2}\), its \(\small\delta^{13}\text{C}_{\text{VPDB}}\) value should have already been enriched in (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) ( + 20 ± 10‰) at that time (Methods provide details). It is problematic to understand whether several hundred million years after formation of Martian atmosphere, enough time has passed to create the (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) enrichment of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) only via carbon escape into space^14,25. Furthermore, based on geomagnetic observations²⁶, early Mars probably had a geomagnetic field before 4 Ga. The geomagnetic field on early Mars could have prevented solar winds from interacting with ions in the upper atmosphere and shielded the neutral atmosphere from sputtering loss. Robust magnetic shielding of the atmosphere before 4 Ga is supported by observations of low-fractionated atmospheric argon (\(\small\ce{^38Ar}\)/\(\small\ce{^36Ar}\)) and nitrogen (\(\small\ce{^15N}\)/\(\small\ce{^14N}\)) recorded in ALH 84001^27,28. Therefore, (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) enrichment of Mars’ early carbonate is still enigmatic and may have been caused by other fractionation processes^14,25,29. Here we present a new laboratory experiment and quantum theoretical and model calculations that demonstrate how solar UV photolysis of \(\small\ce{CO2}\) and subsequent organic synthesis from atmospheric \(\small\ce{CO}\) could explain both the strong (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) depletion in the organic matter and the (\(\small\ce{^13C}\)) enrichment of \(\small\ce{CO2}\). A previous \(\small\ce{CO2}\) photolysis experiment¹⁸ was conducted using an ultraviolet light source with a confined wavelength at 184.9 nm, which does not simulate the actual fractionation that occurs in a planetary atmosphere where the expected isotope effect depends on the broad distribution of wavelengths of the actinic UV flux¹⁷ (Fig. 1). Therefore, we used a solar-like broadband UV source for \(\small\ce{CO2}\) photolysis (Fig. 1a) to confirm the large carbon isotope effect and quantify the actual fractionation factor associated with \(\small\ce{CO2}\) photolysis in the early Martian atmospheres.

It's going to be interesting watching creationists trying to ignore the evidence, that this finding establishes, that the natural creation of building blocks of life is not impossible nor even highly unlikely, but happens as readily as any other chemical reaction in the presense of inorganic molecules that were abundant on early Earth, as on early Mars. No god-magic required.

---

Advertisement

What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You

How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Refuting Creationism - The Dynamics of a Forest Ecosystem - Or How LIfe Is Fine-Tuned For Its Environment

The impact of insect herbivory on biogeochemical cycling in broadleaved forests varies with temperature | US Forest Service Research and Development

An interesting piece of research by a large international team led by the Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), has shown how herbivory by leaf-eating insects is part of a dynamic forest ecosystem, as the results of herbivory releases nutrients back into the soil from where they are recycled back into the forest canopy.

It is a lovely illustration of how, in contrast to what creationists claim is evidence that Earth is fine-tuned for life, it is actually life that fine tunes itself to fit the environment by an evolutionary process. There is nothing magical about it; it is simply the operation of basic laws of chemistry and physics, and the differential survival of those best fitted to live and reproduce within the ecosystem.

How the team did this research is the subject of an open access research paper in Nature Communications and is explained in a press release from USDA:

Refuting Creationism - What Caused The Transition From Ediacaran To Cambrian Biota? It's The Environment, Of Course

550-Million-year-old fossil hunting in Namibia

Artist's impression of the Ediacaran fauna

Sea level changes shaped early life on Earth, fossils show | The University of Edinburgh

What creationists will tell you about the Cambrian 'Explosion', i.e., the rapid radiation of different species with different body plans, is that it happened in an instant. One minute there was nothing; the next, lots of different species with lots of different body plans were swimming about eating one another and avoiding being eaten. This is a parody of course and depends on deliberately or otherwise, misunderstanding what the term 'Cambrian Explosion' means.

What it doesn't mean is that lots of different body plans suddenly appeared without ancestor and with no common ancestry. Creationist claims of spontaneous, magical creation are nonsense, of course. Not only did the Cambrian biota have ancestors, but those ancestors themselves had ancestors in the preceding 'Ediacaran' era, named after the Australian rocks in which their fossils were first found. And those Ediacaran multicellular organisms had ancestors in the form of single-celled organisms that gave rise to these colonial organisms.

What caused the transition from the sessile Ediacaran biota to the Cambrian biota was the evolution of mobility. Mobility creates the opportunity for predation so, unlike sessile organisms that depend on a supply of simple nutrients that have to be metabolized and make into structural materials, being able to predate on other organisms means they can obtain organic molecules already made by something else.

Refuting Creationism - How Worms Turned - Into Insects

Fig. 1: Anatomical overview of Youti yuanshi.

Ancient worm fossil solves mystery of how insects and spiders evolved - Durham University

To anyone who has ever looked at the segmented body of an annelid worm and the segmented body of an insect, particularly in its larval stage, that the latter is really the former with legs and (usually as an adult) wings should be obvious. The same can be said for annelid worms and centipedes and, for that matter, worms with legs and arachnids (spiders, scorpions and mites). But maybe the connection between arachnids and crabs or insects and barnacles is not so obvious, until you look at how the legs work and how they both have an exoskeleton instead of an endoskeleton like the vertebrates.

But then even the primitive ancestors of the vertebrates were segmented like the annelids, as we can see in the spinal column and the way nerves arise from the spinal cord.

But, tell a creationist that a segmented worm evolved into the arthropods, and they'll immediately demand to see the 'transitional' fossil, that they've been fooled into thinking must exist because every generation of every species is obliged to leave a fossil so there is a complete, unbroken record of evolution somewhere, because the Theory of Evolution says so. In fact, a complete, unbroken fossil record of every generation of an evolving species over time would look suspiciously like something other than chance was at work in creating fossils.

So, what we have are the snapshots at random points in time that are left in the geological column, and various dating methods that tell us how old the fossil is. The rest is simple common sense and joining the dots.

And one such snapshot has just been announced by researchers working at Durham University, UK, who have identified a species that is clearly partway between a segmented worm and an early arthropod (euarthropod). The newly-named Youti yuanshi is about the size of a poppy seed and fits neatly into one of creationism's beloved gaps. And, of course, it is exactly what the TOE predicts should have lived, because, as I said, the connection between segmented worms and segmented arthropods is obvious.

Unintelligent Design - Cancer in Birds - Malevolence, Incompetence or Evolution

Cancer affects virtually all multicellular organisms, birds included. A new study highlights the trade-off between investment in reproduction and DNA maintenance. Birds laying larger numbers of eggs have less resources available to ensure the integrity of their DNA, leaving them more vulnerable to cancer.

Graphic by Jason Drees

Canada goose eggs, Branta canadensis

Chrislotos

ASU researchers explore cancer susceptibility in birds | ASU News

Researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) have discovered a statistical link between the incidence of cancer in birds and their reproductive rates. As species, birds that lay more eggs are more liable to die of cancer.

The team attribute this to an evolutionary tradeoff between reproduction and survival. Those species which are more susceptible to cancer - which is a function of aging as the longer an individual lives the greater are its chances of developing a cancer - have evolutionary pressure to produce more offspring while young, where as those with a lower susceptibility can afford to expend less energy in reproducing and to spread it over a longer average lifespan.

This is easily understood as the result of an evolutionary process, as are cancers, which result from mistakes in cell replication, which is a sub-optimal, utilitarian process in multicellular organisms with specialised cells and tissues, resulting from inheriting the same mechanism that single-celled ancestors used so the whole genome is replicated in every cell, regardless of which genes those specialized cells will need.

Refuting Creationism - How a Mass Extinction 66 Million Year Before Creation Week Triggered The Rappid Evolution Of Birds

The Broad-billed Tody, Todus subulatus, is a member of the bird group Coraciimorphae.

Image credit: Daniel Field,
University of Cambridge

The Northern Flicker, Colaptes auratus, is a member of the bird group Coraciimorphae. Berv and co-authors identify this group of birds and others as having close ties to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction that occurred in the wake of the Chicxulub asteroid impact approximately 66 million years ago.

Image credit: Daniel Field, University of Cambridge

Mass extinction 66 million years ago triggered rapid evolution of bird genomes | University of Michigan News

Another major milestone in the history of life on Earth happened, like almost everything else, in that long pre-Creation Week history that creationists need to ignore. It was the mass extinction about 66 million years ago that killed the non-avian dinosaurs and most megafauna, leaving vacant niches that could be exploited by the descendants of survivors. It's no surprise to anyone who understands how evolution works, that this led to a proliferation of new species as existing species diversified to fill those niches.

That much was known already from the fossil record, but now a University of Michigan study has found how this maps onto changes in the genome of the major bird families, as a kind of DNA fossil, just as the TOE predicts.

The major difference between the different taxons is how developed the chicks are on hatching and how dependent they are on their parents. In ducks, geese, the ratites and ground-nesting birds such as the plovers, chickens and turkeys, the chicks are mobile and able to feed themselves (precocial) almost as soon as they've hatched. At the other end of the scale, many passerines are helpless on hatching and are entirely dependent on their parents for food and shelter (altricial) for several weeks.

As the birds evolved and diversified, they tended to become smaller and also more altricial. This reduction in body size and increased altriciality are reflected in the genomes. It was these transitional changed that the researchers detected.

These major changes were occurring within 3-5 million years after the mass extinction.

Malevolent Designer News - Is Creationism's Divine Malevolence Hedging Its Bets With SARS-CoV-2

[left caption]

[right caption]

The virus that causes COVID-19 is widespread in wildlife, Virginia Tech scientists find | Virginia Tech News | Virginia Tech

If you've got money to invest, don't invest it all in one product. If that product fails you lose everything, so spread it around, that way you're reducing your risk and should have something left even if your main investment crashes. In other words, don't have all your eggs in one basket.

And Creationism's malevolent designer, who invested heavily in the SARS-CoV-2 virus as its preferred way to make people sick and die and to ruin national economies on a world-wide scale, understands that principle well. But the problem is, humans fought back and not only invented an effective vaccine that cut down the malevolence’s return on investment, but they also developed immunity which reduces the death toll down to a mere headache and feeling a bit lethargic for a few days.

Do you have any information on how many other species can also be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus? Yes, many other species can be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus responsible for COVID-19 in humans. Research has identified several animals that can be naturally or experimentally infected. Here is an overview of some of the species known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2:

1. Domestic Animals:
   • Cats: Both domestic and big cats (like lions and tigers in zoos) have been infected. Cats can also transmit the virus to each other.
   • Dogs: Some dogs have tested positive, but they generally show no or mild symptoms.
   • Ferrets: Highly susceptible and can transmit the virus to other ferrets.
   • Mink: Infected minks have been found on farms, with some cases leading to large outbreaks and human infections.
2. *Wildlife:
   • Big Cats: Lions, tigers, snow leopards, and cougars in zoos have contracted the virus.
   • White-tailed Deer: Studies have shown that these deer can be infected and spread the virus among themselves.
   • Non-Human Primates: Various species of monkeys, such as rhesus macaques, cynomolgus macaques, and marmosets, can be infected and exhibit symptoms similar to humans.
3. Laboratory Animals:
   • Hamsters: Both Syrian and Chinese hamsters are susceptible and can transmit the virus.
   • Mice: Wild-type mice are generally not susceptible, but genetically modified mice expressing the human ACE2 receptor can be infected.
   • Rabbits: Some susceptibility has been observed, although with mild or no symptoms.
   • Tree Shrews: Can be infected and are used in research studies.
4. Farm Animals:
   • Pigs: Some studies have shown low susceptibility with no significant symptoms.
   • Cows** and **Chickens: Generally considered not susceptible based on current evidence.

The list of species continues to evolve as more research is conducted. Surveillance and studies are ongoing to better understand the range of susceptible species, their role in the transmission of the virus, and the potential implications for human and animal health.

By the divine malevolence was crafty and hedged its bets by designing the virus so it also infects wild animals so it can build up a nice little nest egg with which to launch another big raid on the futures market which could pay dividends in terms of human lives and increased suffering. All it need do is give the virus a little tweak and we could have another pandemic to rival the 2020 one all over again.


We have known about the zoonotic abilities of the virus for some time - after all it is believed to have evolved in another species before transferring to humans in 2019, but a team of Virginia Tech researchers have discovered that it may be more widespread in the wild animal populations, especially those near human habitation, than was previously thought.

Their results are published, open access in the journal Nature Communications and are explained in a Virginia Tech news release:

The virus that causes COVID-19 is widespread in wildlife, Virginia Tech scientists find

---

Six of 23 common wildlife species showed signs of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an examination of animals in Virginia, as revealed by tracking the virus’s genetic code.

---

SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is widespread among wildlife species, according to Virginia Tech research published today in Nature Communications. The virus was detected in six common backyard species and antibodies indicating prior exposure to the virus were found in five species with rates of exposure ranging from 40 to 60 percent depending on the species.

Genetic tracking in wild animals confirmed both the presence of SARS-CoV-2 and the existence of unique viral mutations with lineages closely matching variants circulating in humans at the time, further supporting human-to-animal transmission, the study found.

The highest exposure to SARS CoV-2 was found in animals near hiking trails and high-traffic public areas, suggesting the virus passed from humans to wildlife, according to scientists at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, the Department of Biological Sciences in Virginia Tech’s College of Science, and the Fralin Life Sciences Institute.

The findings highlight the identification of novel mutations in SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife and the need for broad surveillance. These mutations could be more harmful and transmissible, creating challenges for vaccine development.

The scientists stressed, however, that they found no evidence of the virus being transmitted from animals to humans, and people should not fear typical interactions with wildlife.

Investigators tested animals from 23 common Virginia species for both active infections and antibodies indicating previous infections. They found signs of the virus in deer mice, Virginia opossums, raccoons, groundhogs, Eastern cottontail rabbits, and Eastern red bats. The virus isolated from one opossum showed viral mutations that were previously unreported and can potentially impact how the virus affects humans and their immune response.

The virus can jump from humans to wildlife when we are in contact with them, like a hitchhiker switching rides to a new, more suitable host. The goal of the virus is to spread in order to survive. The virus aims to infect more humans, but vaccinations protect many humans. So the virus turns to animals, adapting and mutating to thrive in the new hosts.

Professor Carla Finkielstein, Co-corresponding author
Professor of biological sciences
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

SARS CoV-2 infections were previously identified in wildlife, primarily in white-tailed deer and feral mink. The Virginia Tech study significantly expands the number of species examined and the understanding of virus transmission to and among wildlife. The data suggests exposure to the virus has been widespread in wildlife and that areas with high human activity may serve as points of contact for cross-species transmission.

This study was really motivated by seeing a large, important gap in our knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a broader wildlife community. A lot of studies to date have focused on white-tailed deer while what is happening in much of our common backyard wildlife remains unknown.

Assistant Professor Joseph R. Hoyt, co-corresponding author
Assistant professor of biological sciences
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

The research team collected 798 nasal and oral swabs across in Virginia from animals either live-trapped in the field and released, or being treated by wildlife rehabilitation centers. The team also obtained 126 blood samples from six species. The locations were chosen to compare the presence of the virus in animals in sites with varying levels of human activity, from urban areas to remote wilderness.

The study also identified two mice at the same site on the same day with the exact same variant, indicating they either both got it from the same human, or one infected the other.

Researchers are not certain about the means of transmission from humans to animals. One possibility is wastewater, but the Virginia Tech scientists believe trash receptacles and discarded food are more likely sources.

I think the big take home message is the virus is pretty ubiquitous. We found positives in a large suite of common backyard animals.

Dr Amanda R. Goldberg, first author
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

While this study focused on the state of Virginia, many of the species that tested positive are common backyard wildlife found throughout North America. It is likely they are being exposed in other areas as well, and surveillance across a broader region is urgently needed, Hoyt said.

The virus is indifferent to whether its host walks on two legs or four. Its primary objective is survival. Mutations that do not confer a survival or replication advantage to the virus will not persist and will eventually disappear. We understood the critical importance of sequencing the genome of the virus infecting those species. It was a monumental task that could only be accomplished by a talented group of molecular biologists, bioinformaticians, and modelers in a state-of-the-art facility. I am proud of my team and my collaborators, their professionalism, and everything they contributed to ensure our success.

Professor Carla Finkielstein.

The Roanoke lab was established in April 2020 to expand COVID-19 testing.

Scientists should continue surveillance for these mutations and not dismiss them, the scientists said. More research is needed about how the virus is transmitted from humans to wildlife, how it might spread within a species, and perhaps from one species to another.

This study highlights the potentially large host range SARS-CoV-2 can have in nature and really how widespread it might be. There is a lot of work to be done to understand which species of wildlife, if any, will be important in the long-term maintenance of SARS-CoV-2 in humans.

Assistant Professor Joseph R. Hoyt.

But what we’ve already learned is that SARS CoV-2 is not only a human problem and that it takes a heck of a multidisciplinary team to address its impact on various species and ecosystems effectively.

Professor Carla Finkielstein.

The team will continue its research supported by a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Other authors on the paper include:

• Kate Langwig, associate professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Fralin Life Sciences Institute
• James Weger-Lucarelli, assistant professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine
• Anne Brown, associate professor, Department of Biochemistry
• Amanda Goldberg, former postdoctoral associate, Department of Biological Sciences
• Jeffrey Marano, graduate research assistant, Department of Biological Sciences
• Pallavi Rai, graduate research assistant, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine
• Kelsi King, graduate research assistant, Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology
• Amanda Sharp, graduate research assistant, Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology
• Christopher Kailing, graduate research assistant, Department of Biological Sciences
• Macy Kailing, graduate research assistant, Department of Biological Sciences
• Members of the Virginia Tech Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory: Katherine L. Brown, Alessandro Ceci, Russell Briggs, Matthew G. Urbano, Clinton Roby

Details of the carrier species appear in the team's open access paper on Nature Communications:

Abstract
Pervasive SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans have led to multiple transmission events to animals. While SARS-CoV-2 has a potential broad wildlife host range, most documented infections have been in captive animals and a single wildlife species, the white-tailed deer. The full extent of SARS-CoV-2 exposure among wildlife communities and the factors that influence wildlife transmission risk remain unknown. We sampled 23 species of wildlife for SARS-CoV-2 and examined the effects of urbanization and human use on seropositivity. Here, we document positive detections of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in six species, including the deer mouse, Virginia opossum, raccoon, groundhog, Eastern cottontail, and Eastern red bat between May 2022–September 2023 across Virginia and Washington, D.C., USA. In addition, we found that sites with high human activity had three times higher seroprevalence than low human-use areas. We obtained SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences from nine individuals of six species which were assigned to seven Pango lineages of the Omicron variant. The close match to variants circulating in humans at the time suggests at least seven recent human-to-animal transmission events. Our data support that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 has been widespread in wildlife communities and suggests that areas with high human activity may serve as points of contact for cross-species transmission.

Introduction
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has resulted in over 771 million human cases and over six million deaths worldwide¹. As SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic in humans, one of the greatest threats to public health is the resurgence of more virulent and transmissible variants. The considerable pathogen pressure imposed by the pandemic has caused concern as to whether SARS-CoV-2 will spill into wildlife populations, establish a sylvatic cycle, and potentially serve as a source for new variants.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to captive animals has been well documented^2,3,4, but detections in free-ranging wildlife are currently limited to only a few species including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus^5,6,7), feral mink (Neovison vison⁸), and Eurasian river otters (Lutra lutra⁹). Experimental infections and modeling of the functional receptor for SARS-CoV-2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2: ACE2) have shown that numerous wildlife species may be competent hosts^{10,11,12,13,14,15}. However, it remains unexplored whether a diversity of wildlife species are infected in natural settings, where exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be indirect and at a lower exposure dose.

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, numerous variants have been detected in humans and animals. Many variants that have become dominant have mutations that increase their infectivity in humans¹⁶, and may also impact the virus’s ability to infect new wildlife species. SARS-CoV-2 collected from white-tailed deer have included lineages circulating in humans, caused by human-to-deer transmission5, but have also included lineages with unique mutations suggestive of deer-to-deer transmission¹⁷. This implies that only minimal adaptation may be needed for transmission to occur among deer following initial human-to-animal transmission events¹⁸. Other human peridomestic species, such as deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus)^12,13 and skunks (Mephitis mephitis)¹⁴ have been shown to be capable of viral shedding in laboratory settings¹¹. Collectively, these studies raise important questions about the extent of human-to-wildlife transmission and the ability of other wildlife species to sustain transmission.

Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 infections in wildlife communities could result in novel mutations that increase virulence, transmissibility, or confer immune escape, negatively impacting both human and wildlife populations. Furthermore, as SARS-CoV-2 adapts to not only human hosts, but potentially a wide diversity of wildlife species, SARS-CoV-2 evolution may become more unpredictable¹⁹. This could present several challenges for human health, including concerns related to vaccine development targeting human-specific lineages, and novel impacts to pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus.

Here, we examine how widespread SARS-CoV-2 exposure has been in wildlife communities between May 2022 and September 2023. We used quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to examine 789 nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples from 23 species sampled across Virginia and Washington D.C., USA and documented the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in six of these species. In addition, we analyzed 126 serum samples from six species collected before and after the arrival of SARS-CoV-2 and detected neutralizing antibody titers in five of the six species. Finally, we detected an effect of urbanization and human use on seropositivity in animals, and examined genomic data associated with positive samples.

Goldberg, A.R., Langwig, K.E., Brown, K.L. et al.
Widespread exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife communities. Nat Commun 15, 6210 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49891-w

Copyright: © 2024 The authors.
Published by Springer Nature Ltd. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

The fact that this virus is so capable of infecting other species is a cause for concern because the wider it spreads and the more species it come into contact with, the greater the chance of it crossing over to new species, and the more species it infects, the greater the probability of new variants evolving that can transfer back into humans with unpredictable consequences.

Creationists must be very proud of the devious nastiness of their favorite malevolence.

Refuting Creationism - Interactions Between Earth’s Early Life Forms And The Environment - Over 500 million Years Before 'Creation Week'

AI-generated image of what the ocean may have looked like during the Paleozoic era, around 500 million years ago.

AI-generated image of ancient phytoplankton in oxygen rich seawater.

Scientists Untangle Interactions Between the Earth’s Early Life Forms and the Environment over 500 million Years - College of Arts & Sciences at Syracuse University

One of creationism's problems is that, by insisting the Universe is only 10,000 years old or less, they place 99.9975% of Earth's history in that very long, pre-Creation period when, according to their mythology, there wasn't any history.

This, of course, is trivially easy to refute simply by finding evidence of something that happened during this period, and since almost all of history did, this is not much of challenge.

As I've remarked before, creationism is not a problem for science; science is a problem for creationism - which is why creationists spend almost all their time attacking science and lying about it to get new recruits, while all science need do is produce a few facts now and then - something it does incidentally, without even thinking about creationism.

Creationism Refuted - Cosmologists Are Changing Their minds Again - But It's Not What Creationists Hoped For

Artist's depiction of the spray of particles arising from the collision of two heavy atoms. As the hot subatomic soup cools, newly formed particles shower off into space.

Credit: Joseph Dominicus Lap

Smashing time with ALICE.
A picture shows the tracks of particles produced in a lead ion smashup in the Large Hadron Collider.

Image: ALICE/CERN

Discovery sheds light on the origins of matter in the early universe

Like all good scientists, cosmologists are re-examining what they thought they knew and, because there are new facts, they are allowing these facts to dictate their understanding. The issue is when exactly the matter in the Universe was created by natural forces.

But before creationists start celebrating, these cosmologists would laugh at the childish notion that it was all made by magic 10,000 years ago. In fact, the revision is over whether it was all produced in the first few picoseconds after the Big Bang, or 0.000001 seconds later. There is no doubt about whether the Big Bang happened or how long ago it happened and it was many orders of magnitude longer ago than Creationists like to imagine.

The problem is that in the immediate aftermath (and we are talking of picoseconds) the Universe was far too hot (some 250,000 times hotter than the sun's core) for even elementary particles to form in the high-energy electromagnetic field in which quarks couldn't even interact.

Unintelligent Designer News - Is Creationism's Incompetent Designer Also A Racist?

National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organization (NACCHO) logo

Torres Strait family on Thursday Island.

Image source: Let’s Learn about the Torres Strait Islands, Oz Publishing.

Lupus is more common and severe in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Learning why is crucial

The realisation that Australian Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders are not only more prone to the autoimmune condition lupus but suffer a more severe form of it than Europeans, would be an embarrassment for creationists if they were aware of it and understood the implications for some of their most cherished superstitions.

It has long been known that Africans and Asians are more prone to lupus, but this study shows that Australian Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders may have been singled out for special attention, if you believe these things are designed by creationism's putative designer.

In general terms. lupus is a failure if the immune system in that something triggers it to turn against the person instead of protecting them. As an example of design, it is an example of incompetence in the extreme. It's like creating an army to protect a country, only to have it turn on the people of that country and start massacring them, because it's mistaken them for invaders. This might be a feature of mal-formed banana republics, but it's hardly a sign of a well-designed civilised society.

But, of course, creationists have been primed to blame these design failures, like parasites, on the scientifically nonsensical 'genetic entropy' and 'devolution', but if that were to blame for the greater suffering of these Austronesians that would mean that they have 'devolved' further than other humans and so must have been subject to more 'genetic entropy'. But all humans have been around for the same length of time, whether you accept the science or believe the childish magic creation just a few thousand years ago, so what would cause this accelerated rate of 'genetic entropy' in a regional population?

Bible Blunders - Why the Bible Could Not Have Been Written Or Inspired By The God Described In It

What happens when matter is squashed to the brink of collapse? We weighed a neutron star to help NASA find out

Assuming you could speak whatever ancient form of Hamito-Semitic language the Bronze Age authors of Genesis spoke; what do you think they would say if you asked them how to weigh a neutron star?

They might just about grasp the meaning of 'weigh' but 'neutron' and 'star', let alone 'neutron star'?

The plain fact is that we not only speak a different language but have words for ideas and objects which would have been incomprehensible to people who thought the entire Universe was a small, flat planet with a dome over it, that contained nothing that couldn’t be found within a day or two's walks of their pastures in the Middle Eastern petty state of Canaan, later to split up into even smaller waring tribal area under the leadership of despotic warlords.

You could have done the same with words like 'electricity', 'atom', bacteria', 'virus', 'genes', 'energy', 'galaxy', 'thermodynamics', 'chemistry', 'physics' and, of course 'evolution'. These are all as absent from the Bible as are elephants, penguins, north and south-poles, democracy, civil rights, or gender equality, because the authors knew nothing about them and had no way of knowing anything about them.

It wasn't that they were stupid, after all it probably takes a lot of intelligence and a long apprenticeship to understand the needs of a herd of sheep and/or goats and where the best grazing is without encroaching on the neighbouring tribes grazing rights. My dear old maternal grandfather was a highly-respected third-generation shepherd in his day who was head-hunted to look after a prize-winning flock of Oxford Downs and given a cottage to live in, that his family then lived in for four generations. He was by no means a stupid man - simplistic in his understanding of many things. A fundamentalist Christian who knew the Bible by heart and took everything in it as 'Gospel truth' and misogynistic to the core, but not stupid.

But they not only lacked the technology (how can you learn about bacteria when you don't have glass good enough to make a microscope) but they believed they knew the answers already. They thought they knew the answers to the questions their limited horizons suggested - and the answer was always the same - a god did it (which god or gods didn't matter, it was the god or gods the rest of the tribe believed in), so what would you want a microscope for? there is nothing in water that you can't see, except water. There is nothing over the earth but the dome with the sun and moon and stars fixed to it, so why would you need a telescope to find out about galaxies?

Refuting Creationism - A Surfeit of Lamprey Evolution

Jawless lamprey

Image by T. Lawrence,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Petromyzon marinus, an invasive species in the North American Great Lakes.

Lampreys possess a ‘jaw-dropping’ evolutionary origin - Northwestern Now

It's a basic delusion of the creation cult that evolutionary biologists are turning their backs on the Theory of Evolution in favour of their childish notion of magic by a magic creator for which there is not an iota of scientific evidence. This probably tells us more about the ignorant gullibility of their target dupes and the contempt in which they are held by the cult leaders, than creationist frauds would want us to know.

The lie is designed to fool creationists into thinking that their childish superstition is ahead of science because their abysmal ignorance of the subject gives them a better understanding of biology than people who have university degrees in the subject and who use it every working day to reveal new facts and develop new medicines or more efficient agriculture, or simply to reveal the truth about the world we live in.

Creationists have also been fooled into thinking these millions of working biomedical scientists, their research assistants and staff of research institutes, together with those who publish the science journals, are all lying to mislead people because they 'hate' the imaginary, unproven creator, and none of them has ever broken ranks and blown the whistle on the 'deception'.

Meanwhile, in the grown-up world outside the creationist rabbit hole, real scientists are discovering facts that show how evolution from common ancestors involves genetic changes, just the way the Theory of Evolution predicts.