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
50. austinite re 'the fall': The belief in a pre-fall ecological utopia is one interpretation of the genesis narrative. It is not explicitly stated in the text that all animal life was vegetatrian or scavengers, (or that no animals died) but this is a possibility, I guess. It seems to be more of a preference to me. Don't want to start another mini thread in this post, but just wanted to make skeptics aware that there is more than one view on this.kvwells
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
I'm surprised no one has wondered how the cockroach sees all this. After the injection into his brain he grooms himself for about 30 minutes (you need to research beyond Wiki to learn this) then calmly submits to whatever the wasp wants. It would appear to me the roach is drugged into a state of bliss. If you ask me it sure beats a shot of RAID in his face or any of the poisons man has invented for roach control.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
If Bill had a method for reliably detecting Designers I'd think he'd be running around in the streets announcing it...especially if it pointed to his favored Designer. In any case, the designed objects themselves may hold clues to the Designer(s) identity. It's not like ID proponents are saying that it MUST be impossible to identify the Designer(s)...it's just that ID as of now doesn't contain the tools with the ability to do so.Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Barrett1 there have been those in the past who have looked at things in the natural world and were cocksure that it was designed by an intelligent agent The naive presumptions of design have been weeded out. "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth" -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle I say to you we've eliminated the impossible (Gods of Thunder, Fire, Sun, Volcanoes, and whatnot) and what remains (Intelligent Creator of Life), however improbable, is the truth.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
DaveScot, thanks for letting me participate in this discussion. I think you guys do a great job. The people who comment here are good people and I feel blessed to be welcome. Back to lurking.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Barrett1,
And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient. And suspicious.
Unless the designer shows up and takes credit. Wouldn't that be something?mike1962
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
"Imagine, if you will, how a wasp was intelligently designed with 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 Intelligent Design. " - Arnhart. The logical error you are making is that ID doesn't explain how the designer designed it. So, you will find no such stories in the ID community. However, the statement you were rying to rebut: "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. - DaveScot ... His is the only one accurate statement. Becasue evolutionists do use their imagination to explain how such a features in life came about by changes.JGuy
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Somebody should do an animation where Dembski is the wasp, and Dawkins is the cockroach. I think that would be funny.mike1962
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
SCheesman Darwinists must look with great envy at their geochemist colleagues You bet. We should label it with some suitably Freudian moniker. How about "Predictability Envy"? The "hard" sciences (pun intended) such as chemistry and physics and predict things with exquisite precision. Chemists don't have to make up stories about how hydrogen and oxygen bonded in the remote past to form water. They can see it happen in a lab and can predict the process with precision. Others can repeat it. There's a real theory. NeoDarwinian evolution isn't a theory. It's a narrative. A fiction. No more and no less. I'm not saying the ID explanation isn't a fiction but at least it's a fiction based on the actual observation of intelligence in the universe today. No suspension of credulity is required to believe that intelligence exists in the universe today as that's a proven quantity. To believe that intelligence existed in the past requires only a small leap of faith, not the gigantic leap of faith required to believe that complex organic machinery driven by digital codes just popped into existence by accident. The latter belief is an absurd leap of faith.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
The notion that the fall might account for such things as the ECW’s behavior accounts (at least to me) for other problems, such as the idea of a perfect nature, with purpose and goodness displayed throughout. If the purpose of the ECW’s behavior is to teach moral beings something about their own evil nature, then that would not have been part of a perfect creation. Could God have adapted His original creation Himself, say, by designing the ECW’s behavior subsequent to the fall? Perhaps, but there is a continuum of such apparently cruel designs, right on up to parasites that afflict humans. Here then, God would have designed a real cruelty to afflict moral beings – decidedly not a part of Christian theology.
I just wanted to say I totally agree and thanks for the insight! Back on topic, I just find it ridiculous that sheer amount of mutations that would have to be selected for to create this creature! From what we know, to hone in such a manner is not a simple manner of a base change!jpark320
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Great post and comments. Borne, your thought on the non-randomness of evolution is exactly mine.Charlie
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
austinite , you wrote: The problem with using “the Fall” to explain “nasty nature” is that nobody cares to explain how, in detail, it was supposed to have become corrupted. So tell me, how did the Fall cause cockroach-eating wasp larvae? Did Satan reach up and twiddle with the design of that particular wasp species, or did God build that capacity into the wasp at the beginning and simply “flip a switch” marked pre-Fall/post-Fall? ------------ Columbo responds: Does “science” provide a satisfactory answer to the question: “How do human beings effect nature so as to design their contrivances (such as automobiles, computers, sticky-notes, etc.)?" If you trace the cause/effect train of events backward from any artifact, you eventually come to electrochemical activity in the crania of human beings. The materialists insist upon either biochemical determination or some fuzzy notion of emergence. If you insist that at least we have the material brain as a physical source, leaving the finer details to “unsolved mysteries of science,” and demand that immaterialists produce God’s brain in a laboratory for equivalence, well, I don’t believe you have really achieved a stunning blow against ID. The basic fact remains that intelligent beings choose among contingent options. The behavior of the Emerald Cockroach Wasp is apparently a contingent phenomenon. It is also apparently irreducibly complex. The idea that it is evil (at least in this string) comes from anti-ID’ers. I offered a theological explanation to that line of argumentation. In it, I said that – at least in Christian theology – God allows amoral nature to reflect truths that are instructive for us moral beings. This is entirely in line with posts 54 & 58; to whit that the things that happen in non-human nature have absolutely no moral component to them. The notion that the fall might account for such things as the ECW’s behavior accounts (at least to me) for other problems, such as the idea of a perfect nature, with purpose and goodness displayed throughout. If the purpose of the ECW’s behavior is to teach moral beings something about their own evil nature, then that would not have been part of a perfect creation. Could God have adapted His original creation Himself, say, by designing the ECW’s behavior subsequent to the fall? Perhaps, but there is a continuum of such apparently cruel designs, right on up to parasites that afflict humans. Here then, God would have designed a real cruelty to afflict moral beings – decidedly not a part of Christian theology. Science cannot breach the naturalistic (is/ought) fallacy. Physicalists (naturalists) do so by reducing humans to physical nature, thereby eliminating (in appearance) the “ought” component of the fallacy. (Of course, it gets slipped back in later, hopefully unnoticed when the subject of scientific integrity comes up.) Best Regards, ColumboColumbo
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Barrett But we should all be concerned when our theory points to a bizarre God For those of us who follow the evidence wherever it leads this is no concern. We are interested in the truth, whatever it is, without letting our wishes for good and noble purpose in life and in the universe blind us to reality. The evidence leads me to believe that life as we know it today was designed and it obviously wasn't designed to be sugar and spice and everything nice all the time.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Barrett1: And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient. And suspicious. The only fact is we may never know. But that should not stop us from looking. The new "Grail"...Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I don't disagree it would be far more credible to believe in more than one designer than none at all. But that would require yet another model that I would have to ponder as I try and fall asleep at night. And frankly, I don't have the energy. That's not to say that I am not intrigued by your belief in panspermia. I am. However, as cheesman points out, there have been those in the past who have looked at things in the natural world and were cocksure that it was designed by an intelligent agent. They were wrong. It turned out they were not designed, but the result of natural processes. Now, you may be right that life is designed. As cheesman points out, the jury is still out and things aren't looking up for the naturalists. But I'm not so cocksure. And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient. And suspicious.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
As reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. And guess what?
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski
And yes the design inference does force us to ask other questions. And no IDist is preventing anyone from looking into them. However that also demonstrates that ID is NOT a scientific dead-end plus gives us the impetus to drive the research.Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Austinite, you should read it. You did miss it...it explains how (within a perfectly orthodox theology of Christianity) one can hold that dysteleology (a cocrock-eating wasp scenario) can predate human-kind yet still be the effect of human action. The answer you're looking for is there. You question deals with Christianity, not ID in general, and so I'm referring you to a Theological answer. It answers your question about a "switch" being thrown after the Fall. AtomAtom
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Borne Not only do the unguided naturalists have to ignore the virtually impossible causal chain of events random evolution requires to form the complex strategy of the wasp, they also have to somehow believe that the poor cockroach was denied a defense mechanism by the same process. It seems to me it would be far easier for a random mutation in the cockroach to foil the intricate wasp strategy than it would be for a random changes to restore the wasp strategy. The law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) causes complexity to tend toward disintegration into simplicity. Intelligence is the only known quantity that can work so well against the natural tendency towards increasing entropy as to bring about the existence (at all) of things as complex as wasps and cockroaches in the first place.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
We might never be able to identify the designer(s) but that’s no reason to believe the absurdity that there is no designer at all.
I've noticed that the biggest beef many people have with ID is that it's Design Detection and not DesignER Detection. As if that somehow makes the Design Detection invalid...Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
The thing about this wasp/cockroach story is that if you can suspend disbelief long enough to accept as fact the fictional account that the incredibly complex digital code driven machinery in the simplest bacteria living in the guts of these insects could come about by undirected processes then you should have no trouble at all accepting any fictional account of how the insects' relationship with each other came about by accident. I say to anyone who believes design in nature is an illusion that you need to get your believer fixed. It's no illusion. Don't be a chump. Someone or something designed me, you, the wasp, the cockroach, and the world we all live in. We might never be able to identify the designer(s) but that's no reason to believe the absurdity that there is no designer at all.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
austinite: I'm no expert on theology but I have studied various religions and I think your question--which I assume is directed primarily at Christians--in #50 could be answered in 2 words: The Curse. Supposedly that covered a multitude of things. So, yes, the source of designs for "nasty nature" would be God during the act of the curse. Some Christians might disagree, I don't know.Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Austinite: "SCheeseman, I was going to make the point you made as well, but then I remembered that many believe that pre-Fall there was no death in the animal kingdom at all, i.e. no carnivores, no cockroach eating wasp larvae. I think this is the accepted belief of most Bible-believing Christians of the young-Earth creationist kind." I must admit I'd forgotten that. I've never quite been able to figure out that kind of view. I always thought the fall referred to the "second death", and did not imply that no form of death occurred at all. I mean, the world would fill up eventually, if no human ever died, and what then, stop reproducing? Would humans have been able to survive a fall out of tree, or any other other sort of "accident"? Death, I think, is part of the design. The presence of an eternal soul and an eternal paradise tends to mitigate things, i think despite the present unpleasantness. And I agree with the point made WAY up, could the world have come out any other way? If death is just a transition, why then is it considered by many Christians (and I do consider myself one) bad? St. Paul didn't seem to think so. The "second death": now that's another matter.SCheesman
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Barrett Let me get this straight. Because you can't get inside the mind of a designer and understand the purpose of a design you'd prefer to believe that there is no design. And because you can't find a believable reason "why" you set aside all credulity and adopt a belief in a ridiculous, impossible "how" that defies everything you know. Non sequitur. As long as we're in the business of making up fictional accounts to explain these things why not just say there is more than one designer and one of them was what we would call evil. If logic, intuition, and lack of credible alternative tell us a designer is required then why just one designer? Lots of things in nature travel in opposing pairs. In fact it seems to be a rather common thing. Light/dark, matter/antimatter, left/right, yin/yang, good/evil. What you don't find in nature is really complex machines driven by digitally coded instructions magically appearing without a machinist and a coder involved in the process at some point. It's far more credible to say there is more than one designer than it is to say there is no designer at all.DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Atom, I don't have the time to read Dembski's 52 pages -- I did skim it, but saw nothing that would explain how a cockroach-eating larva would arise as the result of the Fall. Lots of discussion of the consequences of sin, decay, the non-creative power of evil (I guess that would rule out Satan as the cause) but not a word about how it could cause such a radical shift in an animal's behavior. What did I miss?austinite
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
SCheeseman, I was going to make the point you made as well, but then I remembered that many believe that pre-Fall there was no death in the animal kingdom at all, i.e. no carnivores, no cockroach eating wasp larvae. I think this is the accepted belief of most Bible-believing Christians of the young-Earth creationist kind. And it's not just insects who have such parasites. There is a species of crab that is turned into an automaton by a parasite that invades its brain, and I am sure there are other examples.austinite
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Austinite, please read Dr. Dembski's essay on dysteleology and "The Fall".Atom
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Michaels7, no matter how hard anyone argues that ID cannot consider the nature of the designer, it's always going to happen. If you believe that cockroach-eating wasp larvae are a product of design then it's almost impossible to look it and not ask "Why?" I know of no other field of study that involves a designer which does not ask that question. And given that the majority of people who support ID are motivated by religious reasons since it lends support to their worldview, it's unreasonable to expect otherwise.austinite
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
austinite: "The problem with using “the Fall” to explain “nasty nature” is that nobody cares to explain how, in detail, it was supposed to have become corrupted." I must agree with you completely. I think the behaviours described by the original post are, indeed the "original mode" of operation, not some "fallen" state. But seriously, unless we completely anthropomorphise insects, there's not a lot of cognition going on, and "arthropod on insect" violence (or whatever) is not really a good indication of a cruel and vidictive God. Is there really anything more cruel than eating an apple here, if an insect is no more than a sophisticated machine? The existance/non-existance of a soul (and/or the ability for contemplative thought) has been used for years as a discriminator when used in arguments of this nature. A much more interesting discussion would have to involve beings much more like ourselves, such as the higher mammals.SCheesman
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
SCheesman, you've got it going on (as my nephew often says). It's quite a distance from an amino acid to a protein in the great Salt Lake. I suspect when we discover how that protein came to be, it will all be very strange indeed and perhaps only possible with supernatural guidance. Good luck all.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Well said, SCheesman. Excellent point.tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply