Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Emerald Cockroach Wasp

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Emerald Cockroach Wasp

The emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa, also known as the jewel wasp) is a parasitoid wasp of the family Ampulicidae. It is known for its reproductive behavior, which involves using a live cockroach (specificially a Periplaneta americana) as a host for its larva. A number of other venomous animals which use live food for their larvae paralyze their prey. Unlike them, Ampulex compressa initially leaves the cockroach mobile, but modifies its behaviour in a unique way.

As early as the 1940s it was published that wasps of this species sting a roach twice, which modifies the behavior of the prey. A recent study using radioactive labeling proved that the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia. Ampulex compressa delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion of a cockroach to mildly paralyze the front legs of the insect. This facilitates the second sting at a carefully chosen spot in the cockroach’s head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the cockroach will now fail to produce normal escape responses.

The wasp, which is too small to carry the cockroach, then drives the victim to the wasp’s den, by pulling one of the cockroach’s antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the den, the wasp lays an egg on the cockroach’s abdomen and proceeds to fill in the den’s entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the cockroach in.

The stung cockroach, its escape reflex disabled, will simply rest in the den as the wasp’s egg hatches. A hatched larva chews its way into the abdomen of the cockroach and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of eight days, the wasp larva consumes the cockroach’s internal organs in an order which guarantees that the cockroach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the cockroach’s body. After about four weeks, the fully-grown wasp will emerge from the cockroach’s body to begin its adult life.

The wasp is common in tropical regions (Africa, India and the Pacific islands), and has been introduced to Hawaii by F. X. Williams in 1941 as a method of biocontrol. This was unsuccessful because of the territorial tendencies of the wasp, and the small scale on which they hunt.

Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.

Comments
[off topic] EndoplasmicMessenger, I tried contacting you via the e-mail address you registered at UD regarding your querry about IDEA. Did you get my e-mail? Salvadorscordova
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
And second of all, it is nonsensical that an alien would spend his time in a corn field and not visit Times Square.
I am skeptical of crop circles, but let me play Devil's advocate for a bit... I think you may be anthropomorphizing here. Corn fields are collections of living things. So is times square. To an alien organism, with presumably no knowledge of the human significance of NY city, why would one collection of living things hold more interest than another? Cause of the pretty lights and cars? Maybe they think that corn fields are centers of worship, where lonesome humans live among these great collections of corn creatures, serving them, grooming them and taking care of their needs. When trying to get inside the mind of an unkown being, we got to be careful about our assumptions. This is why IDist tend to shy away from pop-psycologizing any would-be designer(s).Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au wrote: "The volume of responses to this posts indicates that the particular nature of the programmed behaviour of this wasp is very hard to grasp if one holds a gradualistic approach. It also indicates that objections to ID are often philosophical and religious." Beyond that, it indicates that the "problem of evil" is still very real to most of us.bj
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
malnutritious Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings Actually almost all vertebrates died and all pollinating insects died. I'm getting a little tired of correcting you. Either improve the quality of your comments or find a different blog.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT
The volume of responses to this posts indicates that the particular nature of the programmed behaviour of this wasp is very hard to grasp if one holds a gradualistic approach. It also indicates that objections to ID are often philosophical and religious. On the other hand, the recognition of design is free from the luxury of excluding dystasteful candidates from the design inference. Thanks Dave for this provocative and a bit bizzare post.idnet.com.au
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage. Nice one. :-) Merry Little Christmas.tribune7
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
"Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage." Interesting comment-well done! Best regards, apollo230apollo230
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
You seem to havesaid, in effect "That is so bizzare. God would never have invented that." Yet I have yet to see you show any qualms about the bizzarness of a God that would invent sex. Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage.StephenA
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
SCheesman, yes, but I was always wary of those kids who plucked wings off of flies. It had a flavor of sadism in my mind. Just a tad. But I was sensitive lad. Frankly, I am not concerned about the morality of insect behavior. But I still contend it is a strange design. Not immoral, mind you. But strange. And to think of a designer putting on his thinking cap...well, I guess it's possible.Barrett1
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Avocationist: "By the way, being concerned over the suffering of an animal is not an anthropomorphism, unless you believe that only humans can suffer. However, that is scientifically impossible, as a pain and fear response are necessary to any animal, and perhaps plants as well. Morally, I draw a firm line between inducing any gratuitous suffering versus a quick kill. That’s why I like to eat venison and think the way we treat livestock is a sin. But of course animals eat one another. The hard thing to envision is the fiendish mind of the designer coming up with such an elaborate and prolonged method. " Suffering involves cognition. There is no evidence that insects are even capable of such. It is quite possible that any detected "damage" (e.g. that which would be inflicted by a predator) simply triggers a pre-programmed flight response, without any sensation of pain comparable to what a mammal feels. Ice responds to heat by melting. I would suggest that an insect's response to being consumed by another is far more like ice melting than what we would feel in a cannibal's pot. And if that is true, then there is nothing fiendish at all. Your argument might be more persuasive if it applied to some similar relationship between (say) a cat and a dog. My take on this is that the form of predator/prey relationships is calibrated to the level of cognition of the species involved, and actually minimizes the suffering involved. Kind of evidence of a benevolent designer, as opposed to a Hobbesian struggle.SCheesman
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
I apologize the original comment I responded to was made by jerry, not DaveScot.malnutritious
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
To my Aussie friend, I was just offering a minor clarification, that's all. Carry on. :)crandaddy
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Davescot: "But the ecology is amazingly fine tuned for a lot of things and Darwinian theory would seem to lead to a deteriorating ecology. As each species blindly heads for some form of superiority since it doesn’t care a wit for any other species, it would then eliminate competition. But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection. So I maintain that the preservation of the ecology is part of the design." Species depend on each other, leading to a natural system of checks and balances. A deteriorating ecology is the exact opposite to be expected by such a system. Equilibrium is to be expected. The game of life is like rock paper sissors, some "advantages" are disadvantages in different situations. I would argue that there is no ultimate "model" for living organisms. Predators are binded to their availability of prey, and so on down the food chain. Other limitations are environmental, including those of organic nature, such as trees for arboreal species, figs for symbiotic wasps, and roaches for parasitic wasp larvae. A resource is a resource be it inanimate or organic. If the resource preexists an organism can grow to depend on it. The difference with organic resources is that they too change over time. And so, it would be unreasonable to expect, that a distinct population(species) would develop in a manor which would completely outpace their competition. Even though this can occur, it cannot be expected to be the norm, this would not be supported by any ecological model. In addition there are limitations on the variation within a particular population on which natural selection can act upon. I would have to propose that it would be unreasonable to beleive that there are no limits to biological systems in terms of speed, intelligence, strength, etc. And that new organisms will not face pressure even if they have an "advantageous" mutation. Equilibrium I would argue is the natural tendancy not the spiraling arms race you have described and espoused. Natural selection would actually select against organisms which are so "successful" that it would destroy the resources on which the species depends. It is precicely this reasoning which has had biologists predicting decreases in the virulence of disease over time. And the prediction of shorter evolutionary life spans of top predators, especially those in limited environments. Speaking of limited environments, Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings. In it's natural tendancy to equilibrium the biosphere ecology destroyed much of the larger more dependent lifeforms in favor of a more suitable balance. (Due to complicated factors the structure favors an atmostphere high in CO2.)malnutritious
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
barret1,
Does it make sense that a designer would instill such bizarre behavior? Nope. Not to me anyway.
I doubt cockroaches and wasps are conscious entities. It's basically one machine overtaking another in a rather humorous way, IMO. Perhaps life on this planet had a whole team of very smart designers. And perhaps one (or all) of them had a sense of humor and thought it was kinda funny to make a wasp kill a cockroach in this manner. (I think it's kinda funny, why wouldn't they?) Or maybe they wanted to see what we would think about it when we noticed it. Maybe they are amused at our musings on the subject. Or maybe they are learning something from us by watching discuss it. Who the hell knows? It doesn't take much imagination to come up with some scenarios here. Free your mind. Bottom line is, your emotional revulsion of it is not evidence one way or another.mike1962
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection.
That's because we missed it! Presumably they all ramp up together, imperceptably slowly. What a treat it would be to time travel to a few million years ago, and witness a world in which protobirds are hopping comically with half developed wings, yet often evading their predators who themselves have not yet gotten big enough or fast enough, or whose noses barely work, so that they are equally ineffective chasers of birds as the birds are ineffective fliers. It wouldn't matter that the octopus (jellyfish?) had no ink, because the fish who wants a meal has only 6% of an eye anyway. Yes, I would love to go back there. It would be so comical, and so very different than the world we see today, where the workings of all things are such a marvel. By the way, being concerned over the suffering of an animal is not an anthropomorphism, unless you believe that only humans can suffer. However, that is scientifically impossible, as a pain and fear response are necessary to any animal, and perhaps plants as well. Morally, I draw a firm line between inducing any gratuitous suffering versus a quick kill. That's why I like to eat venison and think the way we treat livestock is a sin. But of course animals eat one another. The hard thing to envision is the fiendish mind of the designer coming up with such an elaborate and prolonged method.avocationist
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Troutmac, I don't think anybody was questioning the morality of the wasp/roach behavior. I posted that it was bizarre and had a hard time envisioning a God in his celestial studio designing such bizarre instinctive behavior. Others agreed, but felt it was instructive, a kind of message in a bottle to humanity. Tribune7 had an interesting insight in this regard. I find your crop circles argument wanting. Now, I've been reading this thread for a long time, so I understand completely your argument. But here's my problem. The fact that we can not get inside the designer's head with any accuracy is problematic for me, and I’m sure others. After all, if CS Lewis is right, our consciousness is a gift from God. We share this gift with Him. As such, God and His ways are quite understandable. You see, we know that people create crop circles and similar hoaxes for fun. Sure, there are other possibilities for crop circles besides the merry pranksters. Alien visitors? Probably not. First of all, there is no hard evidence for alien visitation. And second of all, it is nonsensical that an alien would spend his time in a corn field and not visit Times Square. I contend that the second argument (that it makes no sense for an alien to spend time in a crop circle) is equal to or more convincing than the lack of objective proof. For certain, the arguments together provide resounding proof that it is a prank. So, back to the wasp/roach shenanigans. ID puts forth logical reasoning that leads us to believe that a designer is at work in this behavior. We conclude this by using Dr. Dembski’s filter (the hard evidence). But then we get to the second question. Does it make sense that a designer would instill such bizarre behavior? Nope. Not to me anyway. I think this is extremely important. I have talked to many a scientist who understands the reasoning and science behind ID. Some find it faulty and some find it reasonable. But unanimously, they have a very difficult time concluding that a designer is really at work (at least an understandable designer) in the creation and evolution of life. Dr. Dembski has spent the time to write about the Fall. And I agree, if we put this wasp/roach example into the Christian paradigm, it makes sense (I guess). But what if you don’t accept the Fall? Now we have an ID theory that only makes sense for Christians. And that folks is unfortunate. And suspicious. DaveScot, perhaps this topic has been beaten to death. Just let me know and I won’t bother with it anymore.Barrett1
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Dave, Malnutritious gave the obvious and trivial answer from first year biology courses. Once you upset the equilibrium of an ecology some new equilibrium will happen based on local resources and a new local ecology will form. What I meant was that the planet's ecology or even most local ecologies are based on the interaction of tens of thousands or more species with the geography, geology and climate of the region and getting an ecology that is "viable and self sufficient" as you said would be an immense task. I understand the materialist will respond with "some ecology will evolve over time and that the one that we have now is just one of a zillion that could have evolved if things had happened a little bit different at various points in time." But the ecology is amazingly fine tuned for a lot of things and Darwinian theory would seem to lead to a deteriorating ecology. As each species blindly heads for some form of superiority since it doesn't care a wit for any other species, it would then eliminate competition. But yet we don't witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection. So I maintain that the preservation of the ecology is part of the design. I was actually directing my comments to those who question the wasp example as cruel and bizarre and that maybe this example is just one of the many small things that help to sustain a viable and self-sufficient ecology. Certainly predator and prey do this but I obviously have no evidence that the wasp and cockroach contribute to anything, just speculation. Hey, maybe the designer left around a lot of nifty processes for us to discover and eventually use. Biologists seem to be discovering new ones each week. One of the premises of the Privileged Planet was that we were meant to discover things. Thanks for the Biosphere 2 example.jerry
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
malnutritious Perhaps the original poster should have said a viable, self-sufficient ecology instead of just an ecology. In any designed ecology the usual result is death for everything. Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed. Biosphere 2 is perhaps the most ambitious attempt. It didn't last 3 years.DaveScot
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
troutmac https://uncommondescent.com/archives/792DaveScot
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
I'm afraid I'm with Barrett on this one.
Because I can’t seem to make the connection between creatures like this and God. And it’s not because I have trouble with the morality of using another creature as a doomed vessel for hatching eggs. It’s just plain bizarre. And I have trouble with a bizarre God.
And I find answers like the following just beyond bizarre.
The Creator (God) permitted certain corruptions only, such as would stand as useful illustrations for His highest (earthly) creation - mankind - so that they might learn from nature lessons they would not willingly receive from His explicit revelation - the Bible.
Conversion for the resistant via insect watching?
And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient.
I don't know if we can know the designer, but we can know God.
It would appear to me the roach is drugged into a state of bliss.
Yes, that is a hopeful possibility, and I believe I've read that pleasurable, herioin-like endorphines take over in many prey animals as they are being killed. I wonder, though, if the bliss chemicals remain in force as the internal organs are being eaten.
The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.
This doesn't mean what you think it does.
a planet designed for torment...And I’m scared I might be going there when I die.
Probably not, but it worries me for you to feel that way. I think that sort of mindset makes you vulnerable to evil beings. There are instances of people going through near-death experiences, who felt themselves sinking into hell, but they called for help and were rescued.avocationist
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
Thanks Crandaddy, I am attempting to limit ID and keep it where I think it belongs.idnet.com.au
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au, Why? questions are relevant to ID. Don't forget that we look at patterns in nature that can be attributed to propositional attitudes (Why?) and try to tell if they can be reduced to mechanistic material causes (How?'s)crandaddy
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
littlejon, You're committing the same mistake as other critics. ID does not address perceived cruelty of nature any different than evolution. ID detects patterns of design. You're confusing Creationist Science with ID. ID does not promote a scientific hypothesis based upon the Biblical Fall, nor on a benevolent Designer for all of nature. You're simply projecting your thoughts onto ID of what you think it should do since many IDist are Christians. Again, is an F-22 Raptor not designed by intelligence simply because it can deliver "nasty" bombs? A science teacher can answer these simple questions about Creation Science, Evolution and ID . Its not really that tough, is it? I'd suggest if you sincerely want information about Creationist Science which does incorporate the Biblical fall into its science curriculum, you visit their sites and search them or email questions. Many of them routinely respond to inquiry and in fact are very open about their beliefs in how to answer such questions. Columbo makes a good point as well. This is a direct result of to much government regulations that stifle discussion. But to be clear on the point of contention. There is a difference between Creation Science(biblically based 6000yr, fall) and ID(which is design detection). This should be clear to ID critics by now. ID forms a much wider tent of acceptance in varying points of view from Christians and Agnostics. Creation Science is very narrow in scope and rightly so being Biblically based science. BTW, Did you bother to read the link by Trevors and Abel regarding information, self-organization, RSC, OSC and FSC? In looking to provide you a link. I found this info... "Researchers have long known that some plants, like cotton, corn and tobacco, when suffering insect attack, are able to send out chemical distress signals. These summon wasp species which are natural predators of that caterpillar type. The incredible sophistication of these signals has now come to light. For instance, the same plant will send out one signal if being attacked by corn ear worms, and another when attacked by tobacco bud worms." CNN website 1999, hattip - http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/349/ Putting on a Creation Scientist Hat. I'd speculate based upon observed data of plants signaling the wasp, I'd determine if similar chemical signals are produced by the emerald roach. There are fruit fry larvae that other tiny wasp utilize in fruit. I'd see if the fruit send out signals as well. Genetically I'd look to see if the emerald roach produces a similar signal and if it was a mutation, if the signal can be turned on/off. I'd research the wasp genetic makeup for different chemical signal detection systems. And see if maybe the wasp has a mutational change in comparison to others. It appears to me that Creationist can be just as valid researchers in new discovery. I certainly would not worry about a 4 billion year scenario. All of this research, comparitive genetics or not can be carried out with little regard for macro evolutionary processes. What would you speculate about how and why the wasp utilizes the roach? Understand this is a very quick, simple look.Michaels7
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
This reminds me of another wasp story: the interdependence between fig wasp and fig tree. The fig tree depends on the fig wasp for pollination. The fig wasp depends on the fig tree as the location where it lays its eggs and multiplies. But more than that, at exactly the right moment when a tiny opening is made in the fig fruit, the pollen-covered female fig wasp needs burrow into the hollow center of the fruit where the fig flowers await pollination. The females often loose their wings during this process, fertilizing the fig when they arrive at the center. Then the female fig wasps lay their own eggs and die. When the eggs hatch, the newly hatched males impregnate the newly hatched females. The eat a passage for the females to exit the fruit, and then the males die. When the females leave, the cycle begins again. These fig wasps live only a few days, but their short life cycle is crucial for the survival of the fig trees. This web site has a good summary of their interdependence: http://www.figweb.org/Interaction/Who_pollinates_fig_trees/index.htm
Fig trees are unique in that the flowers are completely concealed within the fig, an enclosed inflorescence, with the hundreds of tiny florets lining the inside of a central cavity. ... fig trees are completely dependant on tiny wasps, a couple of millimeters long, for their propagation and survival. These fig wasps are the sole pollinators of fig trees and in turn, fig wasps can breed nowhere else but inside figs, a relationship that is a classic example of an obligate mutualism (neither party can survive without the other) that has evolved over the last 90 or so million years. How then do these tiny wasps that only live for a few days manage to perform their amazing task of finding and pollinating flowers that are hidden inside the fig? ... once the pollinator has located a receptive fig, she needs to ... squeeze and labour her way between the tightly closed bracts. She is, however, remarkably adapted to do so. Her body, in particular her head and thorax, is extremely flattened and elongate. She also has rows upon rows of backward pointing teeth on her mandibular appendage, situated on the underside of her head, as well as a few strong teeth on her legs. These teeth assist her progress through the ostiole and also prevent her slipping backwards. Nevertheless, the process of gaining access to the fig cavity is so difficult that her wings and antennae usually break off in the ostiole, but this fortunately does not influence her pollinating or egg-laying ability. ... Once the wasps have reached maturity they chew their way out from the galls and emerge into the fig cavity within a short period of each other. The wingless males mate with the females before chewing a hole through the fig wall to the exterior to allow the females to escape – the male’s only two functions in life, as he dies soon afterwards! The females either actively load up pollen from ripe anthers into special pollen pockets, or in some species passively become covered with pollen, before exiting the fig in search of young receptive figs to complete the cycle.
There was also a documentary on PBS's Nature with some remarkable photography of these millimeter-sized insects and a good explanation of their symbiotic relationship with fig trees: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/queenoftrees/photoessay.htmlEndoplasmicMessenger
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
It seems that some believe that ID should include things like the fall to account for aesthetically distasteful apparently designed features of our biosphere. Science should seek to answer the "what?" questions and leave the "why?" to revelation, theology and philosophy. By addressing such "why?" questions in the context or ID we confirm in the minds of opponents that we have a specific religious agenda. Our agenda in ID is the generalised scientific recognition of the reality of design in the biosphere. We are not able from ID alone to lead a person to a personal knowledge of the One.idnet.com.au
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
I would like to make another scientific point for conversation about plants. Bose's research, and subsequent validation, is important on this point:
His experiments showed that plants grow faster in pleasant music and its growth retards in noise or harsh sound. This was experimentally verified later on. His major contribution in the field of biophysics was the demonstration of the electrical nature of the conduction of various stimuli (wounds, chemical agents) in plants, which were earlier thought to be of chemical in nature. These claims were experimentally proved by Wildon et al (Nature, 1992, 360, 62–65). He also studied for the first time action of microwaves in plant tissues and corresponding changes in the cell membrane potential, mechanism of effect of seasons in plants, effect of chemical inhibitor on plant stimuli, effect of temperature etc,. And all studies were pioneering. He claimed that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc," from the analysis of the nature of variation of the cell membrane potential of plants, under different circumstances. According to him a plant treated with care and affection gives out a different vibration compared to a plant subjected to torture. Source: Wikipedia article
Now exactly how a plant "feels" is on the table for discussion, but what is important to note is that they respond to stimuli; they are therefore sensitive to what is happening to them and react at the tissue, organ, and organism level. A venus fly trap is an obvious example, and there are ferns that close shut their bi-symmetrical leaves as soon as they are physically touched. Someone advocating this disteleological approach like Fross should say: “What happens to many plants on the earth? These sensitive plants are mercilessly ripped limb from limb by animal teeth, their sensitive parts horribly crushed again and again between the teeth of these viscous predators, and then the plant is thoughtlessly swallowed and bathed in acid until nothing visually resembling a plant is left. Surely a world created by a benevolent God would not create such a tragic existence.” Now how we are to explain the ethics of eating plants, since plants have sensibility? Is the absurdity of this whole argument clear yet? Fross said:
I’d hate to meet the maniac designer that came up with this. *shiver*
I'd hate to meet the maniac human who thinks this is convincing to individuals who are engaging their intellects.Inquisitive Brain
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
An ecology does not need to be designed. As peices are added or removed a new equilibrium is naturally reached. This process can vary from gentle integration to complete turmoil. For instance the introduction of cane toads in Australia continues to disrupt the Australian ecology. It may take many generations before it settles down! An example of a low impact introduction would be the indroduction of the Emerald Cockroach Wasp to the Hawaiian islands. A stable ecology is in essence an equilibrium among the various species and resources in a given area. It will occur naturally, for instance too many predators will lead to too few prey. In response there will be a reduction in predators. As a result prey numbers may return. Eventually an equilibrium is reached. The ecology of a specific environment is a result of countless relationships such as the one described.malnutritious
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Jerry wrote: "Designing an ecology may be more difficult than designing an organism. Predators and prey are essential to an ecology." Well said. As usual, we find that Darwinists aren't thinking "big" enough to consider that it's not just predators and prey that need to be designed. It's the whole system… and examples like this wasp are far less puzzling when you consider that they fit into a larger system. Darwinists, it appears, simply hate thinking big. Interesting.TRoutMac
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
So why can’t we offer it as a possibility? I suspect the real reason some folks don’t want to offer “the fall” as a possible explanation is that deep down they’re afraid it might actually be true. There’s really no other valid reason not to. This is clearly not ID, or science. If you want to postulate the fall as a scientific hypothesis, provide some evidence for it. Please stop providing fear as a reason for people's not bothering to take a notion seriously. I don't accept ID but at least its proponents base their philosophies on an interpretation of evidence.trystero57
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Designing an ecology may be more difficult than designing an organism. Predators and prey are essential to an ecology.jerry
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply