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
DaveScot: Without predators there would be too many prey. Excuse me but without predators there wouldn't be any prey. (one follows the other)Joseph
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Littlejon wrote: "…say an inquisitive child who asks about the point or intention of designing this “nasty” insect. We’re honestly meant to mention the fall?" I don't see any reason why that can't be offered as a possible explanation. Notice I said "POSSIBLE" there… I'm not suggesting we need to tell children that this IS the right answer, just that it is one possible answer. But what's interesting about your question is that it reveals a belief, as someone else alluded to, that science is automatically truth and religion is automatically falsehood. As though we KNOW that there's absolutely NO possibility that "the fall" really COULD be a valid explanation. Do you have such proof? Do you KNOW that there was no "fall" and that the Bible's account of the fall is incorrect? Do you KNOW this empirically? No, you don't. 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.TRoutMac
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
In #107 littlejon wrote: I’m still a little confused as to what the answer is meant to actually be to, say an inquisitive child who asks about the point or intention of designing this “nasty” insect. We’re honestly meant to mention the fall? ___________________ Columbo replys: Because we have compartmentalized knowledge into University departments, asking a question framed for use in one "department" (such as e.g. Philosophy or Religion) in anther department (e.g. Science) is - IMHO - what leads to your confusion. This hypothetical child asks for the "point or intention of designing" contrivances in nature, thus begging the question of a "designer." Presently, due to the above mentioned compartmentalization, and the victory of materialism over a theisitc worldview, the answer to such a question is that it is the wrong question. There is no purpose, no meaning, no telic goal. There are only causes. I take the ID goal to be that a teacher would allow the students to freely discuss among themselves the possible answeres, from materialistic answers to theological ones, and any in between. Can you tell me what the harm is in allowing young people to explore the full range of implications involved in scientific discovery? Science is not the alpha and omega of all valid knowledge. It does at times trump other assumptions, and therefore it is a necessary discipline. That does not make it a sufficient one. Regards, ColumboColumbo
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
The hypothesis is the wasp is designed to be a predator of the roach just like an eagle is a predator to a rabbit. Without predators there would be too many prey. Everything must be balanced.DaveScot
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
I'm still a little confused as to what the answer is meant to actually be to, say an inquisitive child who asks about the point or intention of designing this "nasty" insect. We're honestly meant to mention the fall? In a science lesson? Are you sure? Without being rude, that sounds a bit weird. We can't brush it away with "we don't know", because there's lots in science we don't know, but we do have hypotheses. So what's the hypothesis about this?littlejon
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
TroutMac, Please save what you just posted (coment 105), because I am sure you will need it again and again, that is if you continue a dialog with anti-IDists and ID critics. I saw a Discovery Channel/ History Channel/ A&E thing on crop circles. Someone actually caught one forming on video. And all that was present was a ball of light. But I also saw Criss Angel disappear and defy gravity and reason...Joseph
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
This feigned concern about the identity of the designer is sooo easy to squash. For example: Some years ago crop circles started popping up in fields of wheat in England. Jumping ahead briefly, I understanding that some humans came forward and claimed responsibility for crop circles, but some folks remain unconvinced that these humans ARE responsible. There are folks who still believe that crop circles, at least SOME of them, are being left for us to discover by aliens. My point here is NOT to identify, as if I would know, who the designers of crop circles are or were, either by name or by species. I don't care who, or what, is responsible for crop circles. The point is that you can look at virtually any crop circle and immediately AND EMPIRICALLY conclude that someTHING (whether human or alien) with intelligence created them. Nobody with any sanity is looking for natural, unintelligent causes or processes to explain crop circles. Everyone could tell immediately, empirically, that crop circles were the products of intelligence. Products of MIND. They considered human pranksters or aliens trying to send us some sort of message or simply "freak us out." Crop circles were obviously created by SOME intelligent agent. That we may not know who does not interfere with our conclusion that intelligent agents are responsible. The identity, or lack thereof, of a designer is not pertinent to whether there IS a designer. Ultimately what it boils down to is this: Opponents of Intelligent Design reject Intelligent Design not because the theory has no basis, but rather because of who THEY THINK the designer might be. How it is they think they can pass such subjectivity off as "science" is beyond me. Also, I get a big laugh out of some responses critiquing the designer's "morals" with regard to the wasp using the cockroach in such a way. Since when is it "immoral" to kill a roach? Or a wasp, for that matter. God knows I've killed a few wasps. Fortunately I don't live where roaches are a problem, so I can't think of ever having killed a roach. And why is the idea of a wasp killing a roach any more offensive than a mountain lion killing a deer? A Darwinist simply cannot use the perceived "immorality" of such arrangments as an argument against design because in doing so, they demand that this Intelligent Designer obey a moral standard which the Darwinist (and pure naturalist) believes is merely a human construct. You see, they're admitting that morality is NOT a human construct. They just don't realize it because they're NOT THINKING.TRoutMac
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
geoffrobinson: Any more than eating animals is a problem. It is. And that is why I have been a vegetarian since 1979. And perhaps why, at 6' 220 I don't look a pound over 180. That plus the fact I'm a home-gym rat...Joseph
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Designed Jacob: Joseph, are you actually saying that every generation of this wasp, like clockwork, just happens to discover this behavior for itself? No I was actually saying that wasps can learn things just as we can. Bears and the big cats learn to hunt for food from their parents (or other elders). Designed Jacob: This is an insect reproduction script. Can you point it out? Or are you just guessing? Designed Jacob: Those are supposed to be instinctual. "Instinctual" is just our way of saying we have no idea. However geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti touches on this in his book "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" Chapter VIII "I can only tell you what I already know". Someone conducted an experiment with birds that are nocturnal migrators. These birds were raised in isolation from the time of their hatching. When they were shown the autumn night sky for the first time, they soon became agitated and then flew off SSW. If the stars became hidden the birds calmed down. They conducted the same experiment but this time used a planetarium. Same results SSW with the autumn night sky and NNE with the Spring night sky. IOW they learned what they already knew...Joseph
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
What about the designer? What does ID tell us about him? Nothing but that he is "irreducibly smart"! ;-) What can reason tell us about him? A little. Using logic applied to the observable data of our universe we can deduce a bit about the designer. The designer has a sense of beauty - where does the sense of beauty come from? The designer is awesome - where does the sense of awe come from? The designer possesses exquisite intelligence or, in the words of one molecular biologist, "genius beyond genius". The designer has apparently infinite power The designer isn't very concerned with suffering in the world, or - as has been suggested - something went wrong and he is not interested in fixing it....yet... The designer thinks that "if this state of war in the universe [is] a price worth paying for free will...then we may take it it is worth paying." CS Lewis The designer must therefore possess a perspective - "world-view" if you will - beyond space and time alone ... Many other things could be added, and much speculation, extrapolation and conjecture are bound to occur, but the whole good vs evil thing requires a special kind of knowledge to even begin to understand - that knowledge we call - revelation. And that is where theology - not science - comes in.Borne
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
idnet, Good point about sticking to the basics. ID-minded people, when speaking of ID, should keep to the "tried and true" science. This will make it even more glaringly obvious that what the Darwinists continue to stick to is the fomented pathos.Inquisitive Brain
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
"...this is the kind of “boggle argument” that seems to be so appealing to intelligent designers. I don’t like it" It is no boggle argument at all - Darwinism is your "boggle argument". It pretends what it can by no means explain. And ignores mathematical probabilities - rather avoids them like a plague. It uses just-so stories everywhere rather than hard facts. Vastly over-simplifies the realities nature with its postulations and that without any backing evidence. It presents no viable mutational pathway by which such symbiotic relationships can occur. The ones attempted are always woefully, pathetically inadequate. It has no evidence that any such rm + ns process could have built such systems as these wasps with not even a goal involved! It is a bankrupt theory, going down the tubes slowly as each new discovery "boggles" the mind and points to design. These wasps have design written all over them. What you Darwinists never understand or admit is that somewhere, you have to draw a line and say, "yes, based on probabilistic calculations, this is far too concurrently complex and demonstrates such uncanny foresight and knowledge of anatomy and chemistry that no known process of nature could have possibly co-ordinated such a construction". You fail to do this, then pretend that those who see how lame your mere denial of the obvious response are offering "boggle" arguments. And by this very response demonstrate your inability to see how badly Darwinism fairs at explaining such engineering wonders. The argument I and the other IDists here present, is as always, shrugged off by comments like this. You still don't see how probability fits in the scheme and act as though there is no probabilistic challenge at all. Sad. And ALL the arguments presented here as to the "insidious, bizzare....." character of the designer are religious and metaphysical arguments (that methodological naturalists claims they don't have!) - not scientific arguments. Amazing how Darwinian "reasoning" cripples the mind. It cripples the mind to critical, logical analysis to the point where even simple logical implications are missed. Same old story. Darwinists fail to see the religious, metaphysical and even moral foundations upon which their own views are based! So, in fact we have the atheist/darwinist using the innate moral sense given to us by an ultimate Moral Being (morality implies will), to criticize that Being! How brilliant! And yet under naturalism, morals are just inexplicable "illusions" pawned upon us by our genes to get us to live in harmony for survival! (Dawkins and cie.) Survival. That's the only reason the atheistic Darwinist view can come up with for all life - exist - how utterly boring and empty!Borne
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
I wonder whether any of us has sprayed a spider or a wasp or a cockroach just for being in our house. What sort of creature would do that? I hope I never meet one! I agree with Barratt1 that there are many puzzling aspects of the biosphere we occupy that make it difficult to hold that a benevolent God has any direct interest. I find however that there are many puzzling aspects of the biosphere that make me reasonably sure that NDE is a small part of the history of life on earth. YEC people usually hold that death in all living systems is subsequent to the time space fall of Adam. This means that for them the wasp and most of the other bizzare aspects of nature are recent and not supposed to be that way. Bill Dembski has written an essay arguing that a benevolent God created the world that we deserve, given the choice He knew we would make. Design on this "whole organism" or even symbiotic organism level I think is way down the track. Posts like this one play into the hands of our co speculators. We speculate direct design they speculate NDE. In ID I think we need to keep to the basics. We need to stay with the molecules until someone finds out how the molecules code for such behaviour as this. Only then may we speculate on the origin of specific creature features or symbiotic relationships without being laughed out of the lab.idnet.com.au
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Oh well, guess this proves Design does not work. Or is it lack of information?Michaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Darn, font color in preview worked, but does not show in post. Green RedMichaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Austinite, I'm not saying we cannot ask certain theological "Why" questions about the Designer. But, I'll state again that cruelty in nature does not rule out ID. Please see previous comment, #44 for false assumptions projected onto ID and an analogy. "Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" When Atom suggested a Christian theological "WHY" answer to your "Why" question, you reject it and respond with a "How" question. Some "Why" questions cannot be answered without knowing the Designer. Christ himself recognizes this issue for those who've never seen him and yet believe. If an EMERALD GREEN car is left at your house with a note saying, "the newly painted emerald green car is a gift to you." Do you know "Why" it is painted green? Much less "why" the car is given to you? Scraping the paint and pondering "How" paint was applied to the car or "How" it reflects a green color does not answer "Why" its painted green. Asking "Why" the paint is not Candy Red is similarily non-productive in this instance. What is deduced is that an intelligent being painted it. As to Design considerations of the wasp. It has a set of genetic switches. Some are turned on/off. Genetic Code, is a functional Rules Based System that scientist are decoding and decompressing. They're discovering different stimuli of positive or negative feedback loops within boundaries of life. Answering "How" may lead scientist to determine a certain hormone/odor attracts the wasp to the roach that is unique. It does not explain "Why" a Designer would select a particular odor. Inferring Design is the recognition of patterns, probability(or lack thereof) of complex interactions leading to animate life forms and understanding the difference(for me personally) between Random Sequence Complexity(RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity, or Functional Sequence Order(FSC). It is very simple, yet straight forward recognition for boundaries of increasingly complex informational order. Please see Trevors and Abel's, "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 A few of their words from the abstract, "Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC)." ----------------------------- Salvador, if you're reading this. I tried using your original link on UD to Trevors and Abel's other paper, but the link is "extinct." And I could not find the paper in PubMed. Do you have a link? It was originally posted here; https://uncommondescent.com/archives/1749 pointing to their paper which referenced Dembski's No Free Lunch.Michaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Oh great, I haven’t heard the Darwinists scream that atheism isn’t a religion for a while I've been calling it a mythology. :-)tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
IDist wrote: "I think those who involve religion are darwinists, the religion of atheism." Oh great, I haven't heard the Darwinists scream that atheism isn't a religion for a while :)shaner74
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Joseph, are you actually saying that every generation of this wasp, like clockwork, just happens to discover this behavior for itself? Or were you being extremely witty and funny, as I suspected? This is an insect reproduction script. Those are supposed to be instinctual.Designed Jacob
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
"The larval behavior preexisted from these wasps more venomous ancestors. The parasitic behavior existed in this wasp’s parent species. Every once in a while a wasp would attempt to paralyze a cockroach, however with no success. Because of the large size of the prey, the wasp was unable to relocate the victim. However a random mutation gave some wasps venom the peculiar ability to coax a cockroach. At first this population may have become isolated because there were no competitors for this oddly behaving wasp. And the venom may not have been quite as effective, for instance perhaps in some cases completely paralyzing the victim. But over time because of the territorial behavior of these wasps increased pressure forced the poorer performing wasps out of the gene pool. Also the original behavior of stinging multiple times became modified as the wasp no longer needed to sting its prey once it was affected. In fact those that stung it too much probably ended up unable to propagates as they could not drag the huge cockroach to its den. So over time natural selection favored those who did not sting too much, those who stung the correct targets more often, and those who’s toxin was not too strong. Once the method became established the wasp was also under less pressure to be large enough to carry its prey, and was free to be any size, in this case tending towards the smaller side." The problem with evolution to me is that it doesn't really get more detailed than this. I believe in something given evidence (subject to my preferance) Some details I need are: 1. The pre existance thing. I think evolutionists have been rather escapist with regards to abiogenesis as well. However I'll let it slide for now. 2. Even if the 1st generation of wasps decided somehow that stinging cockroaches for no apparent reason and with no benefits to be naturally selected for whatsoever was a good thing, how this this urge get transmitted to its decendants? 3. The wasp is certaining acting weird. But why didn't it die out due to it's inability to catch cockroaches initially? Did the main population tolerate this poorer performing variant? 4. Nature has a certain amount of tolerance for faults, which makes the 3rd point slightly plausible. (environmental noise) However for natural selection to choose specifically for a wasp that decides to sting cockroaches twice and in certain locations probably requires the of elimination of this environmental noise which made the 3rd point plausible. 5. Somehow one wasp got it right. (appeal to time and chance) And assuming that it did... it probably mates with another wasp which didn't quite get it right. (which dilutes the precision of this instinct) I'm assuming that behaviors can be passed down somehow. I have nothing against evolution, it might all well be true, but I expect that this evolutionary pathway isn't demonstratable or repeatable for some reason - as is most of evolution. It might be a story that you just made up in 15 min. Many people do actually believe made-up stories as long as it's made by a scientist. However I don't see any need to think that it is true.WinglesS
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
And they say ID is nothing but religion! Who involved God in this post? Why involve philosophy and theology in a science? I think those who involve religion are darwinists, the religion of atheism.IDist
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
1) Philosophical presuppositions may prevent one from thinking a good God would allow cockroaches to be used by parasite wasps. I don't think there is a problem. Any more than eating animals is a problem. 2) Even if Darwinists could give us a step-by-step account, it would involve a mechanism that transfers learned behavior to a genetic mechanism. I would hazard a guess that that type of mechanism would be irreducibly complex. Either that or we are left with front-loading. Lose-lose for Darwinists.geoffrobinson
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
After getting all of the atheistic pathos against theism out of the way, I almost forgot to address how this wasp impinges on the science of ID: It doesn't.Inquisitive Brain
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
That an organism of our stature, intelligence, and power would develop such an incredibly sensitive moral conscience that we would even look with any sympathy at a lowly form like a roach is a decisive blow to atheism, not theism. If this sort of dysteleology argument is some type of powerful refutation against theism and Christianity, I would say, “Take heart theists, our enemies are pointing their rhetorical guns at their own heads.”Inquisitive Brain
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
As others have pointed out, that a cockroach dies in any particular way is not a tragedy, nor is it cruel. Viewing this as cruel is anthropomorphism to the max. This may be cruel in some pantheistic forms of religion, but certainly not for mainstream Christian traditions. Augustine basically says that since the material world is made from pieces, and if something is broken into its derivative pieces is not tragic, but is in accord with its nature. What is tragic is that people often say they fall away from Christianity because of silly arguments like, "Why would a benevolent God design this evil, nasty, wicked, horrible wasp."Inquisitive Brain
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Keep in mind that parasitic behavior is neither so unusual nor problematic for evolution to explain. The "victim" is just another part of the organism’s environment. And in this case the cockroach can be seen as a new source of food for wasp broods. One possible evolutionary pathway is the following. Given: The larval behavior preexisted from these wasps more venomous ancestors. The parasitic behavior existed in this wasp’s parent species. Every once in a while a wasp would attempt to paralyze a cockroach, however with no success. Because of the large size of the prey, the wasp was unable to relocate the victim. However a random mutation gave some wasps venom the peculiar ability to coax a cockroach. At first this population may have become isolated because there were no competitors for this oddly behaving wasp. And the venom may not have been quite as effective, for instance perhaps in some cases completely paralyzing the victim. But over time because of the territorial behavior of these wasps increased pressure forced the poorer performing wasps out of the gene pool. Also the original behavior of stinging multiple times became modified as the wasp no longer needed to sting its prey once it was affected. In fact those that stung it too much probably ended up unable to propagates as they could not drag the huge cockroach to its den. So over time natural selection favored those who did not sting too much, those who stung the correct targets more often, and those who’s toxin was not too strong. Once the method became established the wasp was also under less pressure to be large enough to carry its prey, and was free to be any size, in this case tending towards the smaller side. A test for this could start by first identifying the proteins involved in the wasp toxin. Afterwards one could analyze the DNA sequence for the genes involved in encoding these proteins and do some comparative analysis with related wasps. There should be some evidence of recent evolution which can be tied to the venom. Analysis of the venom itself can help us to understand how it works. http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/8/957 By comparing this venom directly with those of other wasps we may be able to detect homologies. It would seem from the article above that the seemingly complex behaviors of grooming and suggestibility may be all related to a relatively simple chemical response.malnutritious
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Joseph - “The wasp didn’t have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned.” Designed Jacob: HYSTERICAL! Whatever... (shrug)Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
DaveScott - I like your comment about accepting reality as you find it. We can learn much about the designer from what is designed. The lesson I take from it is that the designer disposes of life as is pleasing to him, without regard to any right in the designed object. To infer moral evil into the designer from this, however, is ridiculous. To do so is to personify the cockroach into a human. There is simply no immorality in killing a cockroach. Compare to the species of man, whom it is immoral to kill, and that fact that we have no natural predators.Designed Jacob
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
#5 Fross - "I’d hate to meet the maniac designer that came up with this. shiver" The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. And yes, it is scary, especially for a Christian like me who thinks I'm probably going to hell, which must be something far worse than existence as an unfortunate cockroach. 13. Joseph - "The wasp didn’t have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned." HYSTERICAL! To all who commented about how these designs - of wasps grotesquely consuming their prey - impact faith due to an inference of an evil designer, let this much be known: God, while not evil, is frightening in many ways. His will and sovereignty has been described as "awful" and "terrible" by many theologians. The turly scary thought is that the fate of wasp prey is the natural order of a planet not designed for torment, unlike Hell. And I'm scared I might be going there when I die.Designed Jacob
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
don't blind generizations get on your nerves? Like when a jaded ex-spouse inserts "all men/women are jerks!" into the conversation at every opportunity. Sorry you got a lemon, but there are a few folks out there who are in a totally separate class. similar to the blind category mistake: Hey we found a materialistic explanation for the origin/effects of these physically simple processes, therefore the explanatory power of materialism must be an infinite gradient from the obviously simple to the incomprehensibly complex. The complexity of biological systems deserves a category of its own, totally separate from any collection of mere random physical processes, like geologists, asronomers, et al, study.kvwells
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply