Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Emerald Cockroach Wasp

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Barret1, The theory does not state any such logic, only its critics. And many critics, instead of honest discussions of merit bring false analogies to a "cruel" Creator. Christian's naturally respond with biblical apoligetics, but it has nothing at all to do with the theory of ID. The cruelty of design is a strawman, false logic and intended to get a knee-jerk reaction off course from the original subject.Michaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
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. Cockroach-eating wasp larvae don't just happen, something has to have caused them to happen, either by some evolutionary process or designer intervention. You can't just say that "God let it happen" since a wasp doesn't have the intelligence or capacity to suddenly switch behaviors overnight. This is not some degenerate behavior caused by entropy or chaotic forces. If these wasps are an argument for design, then the designer must have deliberately designed this "feature" into them. 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? Saying the Fall was responsible is just a vague generality designed to avoid difficult theological questions. Seems like a cop out to me.austinite
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Gentleman (and ladies), The Fall is a theological idea, however that does not preclude us from asking scientific questions that would point to data consistent or inconsistent with a theological view. (Aftera all the science of ID is consistent with certain theological ideas). One scientific area of research to find consistency with the concept of the fall is if we find remnants of benevolent modes of operation or the original configuration of a now degraded function (like the eye of a placental mole, or certain fish), or human immortality which I discuss in the case of Geron Corporation. See: How IDers can win the war. That would actually be an exciting area of research, how to trigger benevolent modes of operation. That was discussed by Gordon Wilson at the Baraminology Study Group a few years back. That's the sort of empirical research that would be totally cool, and maybe have money and fame to boot for those who succeed. Salscordova
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I often compare and contrast biology with geology, or more specifically mineralogy, and suspect that Darwinists must look with great envy at their geochemist colleagues. For here is world with a wonderous and beautiful variety of mineral forms, which intuition would have said hundreds of years ago could only have been the result of an intelligent mind. But today we trace out the origin of any given rock-forming mineral in elegant multi-phase diagrams; drawing upon the knowledge of phase-changes and chemical alterations gained from carefully designed, repeatable experiments. Most, if not all the intervening species are there to behold, still in nature, or can be reproduced, at elevated temperatures and pressures, in a lab. Today we see the evolution of minerals occurring before our eyes in natural laboratories at mid-ocean ridges, volcanoes etc. Their journey can be traced almost back to their origin by measuring the trace elements and gases in fluid inclusions, or the wandering of remanant magnetisation. Intuition has given way to discovery and knowledge, as the boundaries continue to be pushed back. Pity the poor evolutionary biochemist, as every new discovery at the cellular level seems to move the goal posts back another 10 or 20 yards. The mechanisms for the origin of biochemical complexity remain hypothetical at best, and all the test tubes in the world do not seem capable of producing much more that a few amino acids under conditions even partly like what is proposed for the early earth.SCheesman
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Anybody heard of the sacculina barnacle that performs a sex change operation on it's host? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacculinachunkdz
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Barrett1, There is nothing in ID that points to Christianity, only some being with immense intelligence. Acceptance of Christianity comes from something besides science.jerry
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Okay, everybody listen up. I understand the Fall. I've been around. But we should all be concerned when our theory points to a bizarre God and then requires faith in a central tenant of Christianity to normalize Him. Surely we aren't suggesting that ID only makes sense when coupled with a Christian point of view. Are we?Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Well, one reason for Darwin's drift away from God... “I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design.... There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” And they say that how someone teaches something does not lead to certain conclusions in life. The problem is from a Biblical POF, Darwin failed to remember Genesis, prior to sin no animal was slain, sin and the fall of the first Adam led to the first animals slain for mankind. However, appealing to what is described as cruelty in nature is not a cause for eschewing merits of Intelligen Design. In that case, weapons of war are not designed. A car that kills people in an accident is not designed. A plane that falls out of the sky is not designed. A sandal worn by a human which accidently steps on an ant is not designed. The only argument truly being made in the case against Dave's post is in the form of an irrelevant religious question. Is the Designer benevolent, caring and loving if nature seems so cruel? But that is a strawman and leads away from what the real discussion should be. To offer an analogy of a similarly invalid question. What if an intelligent design engineer who graduated with a Masters in Mechanical Engineering decided to design sandals? He loved life, nature, and donated all proceeds to environmental causes to save ants in the rainforest? Someone buys the Engineer's designed sandals, walks on pavement and crushes some poor ants toodling along the sidewalk causeway of life who were dining on some lettuce dropped from a McDonald's hamburger. Does that mean the Engineer and sandal designer hates ants? Or is cruel to ants? And finally, Does it therefore lead to evolutionary sandals and away from designed sandals? Of course not. The design in the wasp is obvious(not just apparent). Whether we like the consequences of its actions to another species is not a valid argument against Intelligent Design. Its an argument of emotions against cruelty in our world, but not against ID. And that is an entirely different argument of theological and philosophical discussions. It is an insect afterall, not a human. And while I may hesitate to step on an insect at times, I do not find them equal to me in value. Neither do I find nature itself sacred. Otherwise, I'd be woshipping a tree, a cow, or a bird and not the Creator. There is a difference in understanding the value of nature in our lives and worshipping it. It is not really part of this argument however and takes away from Dave's original thoughts of the incredible features utilized in the insect to attack another insect. Can inanimate objects form over time to create the complexity put forth in Dave's example? Can matter self-organize into such functional design? Another real question that comes to mind is why didn't the roach evolve a defense mechanism to defeat the wasp? Without looking at the supposed evolutionary time scale of each, does not the roach have equal potential to evolve? Why does this roach still survive with such a predator? Why is it not extinct? Whether we like the function and purpose is not evidence against design.Michaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Now, since Darwinist always ask IDists to posit a comprehensive alternative theory to NDE: For those who reject ID based on confirmation bias regarding the 'lack of Benevolence' (and therefore the existence) of God, I would ask - Please detail how you would create a universe (please list and detail the initial dimensional structure and physics dynamics) that would produce the conditions necessary to develop complex life of some sort. Oh and we need a spacetime scale progression curve, with resulting changes in mass/energy distributions a well as resulting effects on large-scale physics, if you're going to use a big-bang style universe. Now please detail how you would create the kind of interdependent physical system which will give rise to the necessary level of biodiversity which would provide a generally comfortable (if necessary, given the goal, see below) self-sustaining ecology for your hyper-complex and intelligent creatures to live in. But before you tackle this, Please detail the goals and objectives of the Creator in creating, sustaining and completing this universe and living things and mankind. Because you would have to know this before you determined how the universe should be designed, don't you think? Why is it people accuse theists of not being sensible (while many of us became theists from logical conclusions drawn based on analysis of available data) when atheist continue to use these visceral emotional "arguments" which do not speak to the veracity of ID or Theism at all?kvwells
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
bj and Barrett1, The idea that the original creation was corrupted is not "tortured theology", it is practically the basis of the Bible. It is in the first book, Genesis, and is an important theme in the New Testament. The problem of evil in the natural world and a benevolent designer is the very first issue the Bible tackles and is one of the essential features that distinguishes Judism and Christianity from Eastern Religions. As Paul wrote,
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay ... We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Romans 8:20-22
Jehu
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Thank you, Barret1 :-)tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
To Fross, If something can't be explained then there isn't any reason to reject any possibility "just because". And in reality IDists say that not only is that not explained but every time we see that and we know the cause it is via some intelligent agency. IOW the design inference is based on our knowledge of designing agencies coupled with our knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of.Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
tribune7, you my friend, are a theologian at heart. But not a tortured one. I like that.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
I missed this: I would have thought that saying “it was a giant invisible man in the sky who did it” was a far greater example of turning imagination into reality. Huh? Check that guy for wasp stings.Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
hey Borne, it's really common for creationists/IDists to ask a question they feel is unanswerable and then say something to the effect of "they can't explain this, therefore....this" In regards to your "why don't insects grow to the size of humans" there's such a simplistic well known answer that even my four year old knows it. I don't mean this as a put down, it really is pretty common knowledge that I've seen covered multiple times on children's programming. I'd suggest spending at least 5 minutes on google to see if a question you asked is truly unanswerable.Fross
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
They can't draw the connection between this wasp (and thousands of other examples) and an intelligent designer. It just doesn't make sense. I consider it a warning. If this is nature, nature is not something to revere. Yet, we know, beyond any doubt, in our souls, that good exist.tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Fross: So do you guys discount all the evidence for ant/wasp common ancestry? Could you please tell us what data demonstrates that mutations culled by selection can produce the differences between insects and arachnids. IOW I have a feeling that "all the evidence" is speculation based on the assumption. And again- NO ONE said that the design had to be perfect or had to fit our conception of perfect. And even if the design started out perfect that alone does not mean it would stay that way. As a matter of fact I think is a good use for cockroaches. Now I am starting to understand their purpose.Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Scott, I agree that these kinds of discussions are second-order with regard to the design inference. And really, I do see the logic of the biblical doctrine of "The Fall". For various reasons, I am not able to have trust in those ancients documents. Unlike others, I do not seek seek to argue the point or have a need to convince anyone that the way I see things is reality. To each his own. I have stated before that I have great respect for those who do find such documents reliable, and am grateful that you and others have found a faith that works for you day to day. Regards, bjbj
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
DJGibbon --The single most basic premise of the theory of natural selection Natural selection cannot explain this.tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
bj & barrett1: For me, the Biblical doctrine of "The Fall" does a fantastic job of explaining why so many parasitic and cruel creatures exist. It makes sense to me that a benevolent creator designed things with the capacity for cruelty, but that they were not necessarily designed this way originally. I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that things now are not how they were originally. We see corruption and it's deleterious effects, all around us. But again, these philosophical and theological issues are second-order discussions with regard to the design inference.Scott
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
SCheesman, thank you. That is the best explanation I've heard yet. Much appreciated.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Borne, but you see, this is the kind of "boggle argument" that seems to be so appealing to intelligent designers. I don't like it. You say that it is so incredibly mind boggling and improbable, that it must be designed. And then there's a healthy reliance on intuition. It goes something like this: "When do we see something like this over here? Why, when it is designed by an intelligent agent. It can't assemble itself without guidance. So it must have had a guiding hand." But most scientists cringe at this reasoning for obvious reasons. They have faith (okay, I said it) that a materialist explanation will emerge with time. Why do they think this? Because it has happened so many times before. What was once so mysterious and apparently guided is now known to be the result of mechanistic, naturalistic processes. They are invested in naturalism because of its track record. No more, no less. The challenge for ID is to get its own track record. Prove the ghost in the machine. Identify the agency. Or if this is too much to ask, then we must show that an ID model yields results. Materialists employ a model that rejects the ghost in the machine and have been successful in applying this model to solve real problems with real people. I believe the ghost is there. We'd better do a better job of proving it. Throwing out these boggle arguments is clearly a stop gap measure only.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
There is also another wasp that uses similar techniques - Hymenoepimecis, Ichneumonidae This one uses a specific spider - Plesiometa argyra. quote: The orb spider is stung while on its web and is temporarily paralyzed while the wasp lays her egg on it. The spider then recovers and goes about its life with the newly hatched wasp larva feeding on it by sucking its haemolymph. For about 7 to 14 days, the spider continues building its usual orb webs for prey capture. However, in the evening of the night when it is to be killed by its wasp parasite, the spider weaves a different web, designed specifically to suit the purposes of the wasp. The wasp larva then moults, kills and consumes the spider and pupates, suspending itself safely from its custom-built cocoon web. The cocoon web is consistently made to the same pattern. Deviations from that pattern would be disastrous for the wasp larva. The cocoon web is a simplified web and the sticky spirals and multi-stranded cable and radial lines of the orb web are omitted. This simplified cocoon web suspends the wasp pupa, safely protecting it. Vulnerability to heavy rains, for example, was observed in a related wasp species. The spider's change in behavior is thought to be induced chemically rather than by physical interference. The effect of the stimulus is both rapid and long-lasting. Observations were made where the wasp was removed earlier in the evening of the spider's final night and the spider did not spin the cocoon web. Then, the wasp was left on the spider and the spider was observed to proceed with the construction of the cocoon web. When the spider was allowed to survive the experiment, it continued to make the cocoon web the following night and some spiders reverted to making more normal webs on subsequent nights. - Eberhard, W. G. 2000. Spider manipulation by a wasp larva. Nature Vol. 406. : 255 - 256. - slightly edited for brevity. Darwinism has never been able to explain symbiotic relationships - let alone such uncanny behavioral abilities like these and the 1000's of others that could been mentioned. The intrinsic (and intuitively discerned) design displayed is itself the reason why Dawkin's felt he had to invent "designoids". If there were no such obvious design there would never have been any such "need" for a designoid explain-it-away postulation! Man these wasps are smart! Thank God they are not our size! Btw, under NDT, why shouldn't there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It's "easy" for evolution we are told! Their "fitness" for survival would likely be greater than ours.Borne
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Barrett1, Largely, I agree with you. It's impossible for me to believe in a benevolent and worthy God given the reality we live within. And as you state, the theologians' answers are tortured, especially when you lose faith in the trustworthiness of the ancient scriptures. Yet, the intuition of design is still strong. How can you integrate such core concepts into a ordered system of belief. I can't. I remain a believer in some kind of design and an agnostic.bj
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Barrett1: "But like Darwinists, intelligent design proponents want me to ignore my intuition that the wasp is a product of evolutionary processes. They say the seeming bizarreness of God has been addressed by tortured theologians for thousands of years or something to that effect and the fact that it is designed is the basic point. " Originally, it was the "intuition" of scientists that the orderly nature of crystals, snowflakes etc. was evidence of design. Subsequent experimentation showed that these were merely the contingent working-out of natural laws that could be simply duplicated in laboratory conditions, a fact which seemed to deal a death-blow to the argument from design. For this reason, we now give less credence to intuition and rely on experimental results as the basis of our knowledge. Today things are stood on their head. We have complex proteins, intinctive behaviours that must somehow be encoded into DNA, which is itself a code, an abstraction, and NONE of this has ever been shown to be producable from non-directed chemical processes, and in many cases still stumps the best minds available, working in with the most advanced equipment. The best that NDE can come up with is nylonase, the formation of which is just as good an argument for a designed adaptation process. And yet all around us is the experimetal evidence of real intelligence producing real, novel materials in never-before seen combinations. Alchemists persisted in trying to create gold for a long time, with approximately the same success that NDE proponents have shown in demonstrating random-mutation-based creation of novel organisms, structures and biochemistry. The fact that they would eventually succeed must have been equally "intuitive".SCheesman
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
"The single most basic premise of the theory of natural selection is that the results are based on anything but chance." "Surely you jest"! The random aspect of NDT has, since the beginning, been touted by Darwinists everywhere to avoid the obvious alternative -> guided. Only recently have Darwinists started to pretend that it is not random at all. Why? Simply because a probabilistic analysis demonstrates the incredibly improbability that anything like the mentioned wasp could ever "develop" these uncanny traits through rm + ns. Traits that clearly *require* external intelligence. Where did the wasp learn these techniques? Where did it learn it's prey's anatomy so intricately and where did it get the knowledge of what precise chemicals it needed? How did it just develop the exact necessary injection equipment? The wasp (or rm + ns) has to have known it's preys anatomy, bio-chem structure, and habits. It must have an innate capacity to develop just the right chemicals for this specific cockroach's brain - with a complex injection system. SIMULTANEOUSLY. All by RM + NS with no guidance whatsoever. Of course no one will ever pretend the wasp (and all it's transitional ancestors) actually "learned" these things or planned them with a goal in mind! So how does such a clearly ingenious system develop? As always Darwinists *vastly over-simplify and ignore the many 1000's of mutational steps - trial and error - required* to obtain just the injection system let alone it's coupling with a chemical drug factory and let alone it's necessity to correctly match the roach's anatomy! So, being clearly outdone by simple probability, the Darwinists now pretend it is not random at all! Not very clever - another smoke & mirrors "lets pretend we never said it was random" technique, but still useless. Every where I go these days I hear Darwinists talking about random mutations, then denying randomness! If it is not random then what is it? Guided? Planned? Intended? Sorry but you can't have it both ways. If you believe all this sort of natural "wonder" just sort of happens in by concurrent, coherent mutations + ns then I have a very beautiful golden bridge to sell you real cheap!Borne
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Scott, Colombo's response may be a reasonable rejoinder, but it doesn't settle the troubled soul.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Fross, /OT response: The ACLU supports NAMBLA which offers brochures on "How to" find, meet, and greet young victims. Jefferey Dahmer admitted that curiosity in soft pornography led to addictive sexual behavior and desensitization to normal sexual relations. As a result of desensitization, he delved deeper into darker material including pedophilia. So, what's your point? That wasp watch pornography? Or that the ACLU supported Jeffrey Dahmer's right to NAMBLA material and his right to be a pedophile? OT end/ Design is at work both in the wasp and in Jeffrey Dahmer on different scales and in different forms. The difference is that one has a greater potential and choice in life. Both respond to environmental surroundings and input. But the latter has greater choice to overcome the fleshly desires and become a being of fantastic creations.Michaels7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Barret1: Theological arguments demand theological responses. In this case, Colombo does an excellent job of explaining creatures like this in comment #16.
Well, of course there is a reasonable rejoinder in Christian theology along the lines that the wise Creator designed useful contrivances in nature which were later corrupted by an evil will. 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. If we would but apply a small fraction of that blessed gift - imagination - to the world of nature, we might be enlightened as to our awful, anesthetized condition, and seek Him who loves us and made us for His good pleasure.
Scott
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
whoah, the other day I saw a wasp carrying around what looked like a legless spider body. Now I know what I was seeing! So do you guys discount all the evidence for ant/wasp common ancestry? Or do you accept that, but think along the way, a branch of wasps were given these special attributes?Fross
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply