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
I've been waiting for an topic like this to show up. Intelligent Design handsomely relies on intuition, prodding us to capitulate to our sense that nature is in fact designed. It is not an illusion, they tell us. Now, I hear some hedging about this occasionally, that we can be mistaken, but basically our intuition is correct that design is at work in the universe. Darwinists, on the other hand, deny the reality of design, and therefore admonish those of us who believe our intuitive sense that design is at work in the universe. Intelligent Design is an illusion, they say. And moreover, the march of science proves this. What we once thought was the work of an intelligent agent turns out to be nothing more than natural, mechanistic processes at work. An intelligent agent may have been involved to get the ball rolling, they say, but there doesn't appear to be any piercing or manipulation of this closed system we call the universe. So, take the example posted above by DaveScot. My intuition is that an intelligent being would never consciously settle into his lab chair and design such a creature. For me, such a creature has no hallmarks of design. It has adapted and evolved and adapted and evolved over millions of years...Why do I think this? 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. 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. You see, for me, the appeal of intelligent design is that it squares with common sense. I can understand the intelligent design argument that the universe is bathed in a conscious God that was an continues to be involved in the universe. But this kind of example leads me to think otherwise. Now, I bring this up because it is very, very important. I have talked to a number of scientists, medical researchers, physicians, many of which are brilliant people. You know why they reject intelligent design? Because of intuition. They can't draw the connection between this wasp (and thousands of other examples) and an intelligent designer. It just doesn't make sense.Barrett1
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
I have actually seen this take place--amazing. However, in my case, it was this wasp and a much larger wolf spider. If I could have taped this it would have been a national geographic special. The wasp chased the spider around and around a chair leg on my patio. Then after the chase the spider raised its front legs up in defense. The wasp and the spider then locked up, almost like a wrestling match. The whole time the wasp continued to sting the spider in abdomen. Finally, the spider enter a paralyzed state. The wasp then continued to methodically chew off each of the spiders 8 legs (which amazingly occurred in less than 2 minutes). The wasp then carried the legless carcass away. I was lying on the ground just watching all this take place. The spider was obviously very afraid of the wasp and the wasp did not seem to pay me any attention. The whole thing probably lasted less than 5 minutes, but it was the one of the most fascinating 5 minutes of my life.KMO
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Joseph: "The wasp didn’t have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned." I don't understand. Learned how? By each single wasp during its own life? How efficient these occult neurosurgery schools for wasps must be! By some wasp in the past (maybe living near Harvard) and then genetically transmitted? Are we resurrecting Lamarck? I think that, anyway, humans could learn much from wasps, in that case. Arnhart: "Is it “fairly well documented” that divine intelligent agents can perform brain surgery?" Humans can perform brain surgery. In the opinion of many (including me), humans are indeed divine agents, because they have a basically divine nature in themselves, and they borrow their abilities from God, who has created and designed them. What is your problem? Is it difficult to understand that, if a divine being exists, and if He has created and designed human beings, their brains, animal bodies and brains, and many other things (bloggers included), perhaps He could be able to know how brain surgery could be performed on a cockroach, and how to implement that ability in another animal being? In other words, you (as most Darwinists often do) are mixing two different arguments: 1) It is a fact, scientifically and logically evident, that an ability such as the one described has no chance to emerge by RM + NS (I think we could confidently call that "super-irreducible complexity). Besides, it is perfectly obvious that intelligent beings, such as humans, can very well, in principle, understand how such a task can be performed, and how to implement it in some instrument. 2) The existence, nature, purposes and way of action of a possible Divine Designer are not, obviously, the object of a scientific debate (not at present, at least). So they are not part of the ID debate. They can, obviously, be debated at a cognitive, philosophical, religious, political, psychological or social level, and it is perfectly right to utilize, at those levels, the informations derived from scientific debate, including ID theory. The contrary (utilizing philosophical or religious arguments to condition the scientific debate) is not allowed and is not correct, either for IDists or for Darwinists.gpuccio
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Weird. I don't see the word "divine" in this post or any of the comments, outside of what Arnhart created out of thin air. By the way. Isn't it obvious you're not one bit interested in discussing an issue when you make snide and fairly arrogant comments like this:
"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. "
I sometimes wonder what it's like to be so smart and full of so much wisdom. ANY story you come up with is bologna. On the other hand, any story of blind forces at work I come up with is fact. Why? Because I said so. That's sufficient! Nah Nah Nah boo boo!JasonTheGreek
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Yes Patrick, when at a loss to explain it in evolutionary terms they resort to saying that any ID explanation is a fiction as well. What a stunning defense of evolution. I call it the Pee Wee Herman response "I know you are but what am I?". :lol:DaveScot
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
If I get these comments right, then: ID: The Emerald Cockroach Wasp exhibits features which can best be accounted for by inferring an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have nothing more than their imagination to resort to for a plausible expliination. Ev (ala Arnhart): Ha! our explanation is as good as yours, but requires no being outside nature, so ours is a SCIENTIFIC explanation! (Perhaps implying a superior "theory" by Occam's Razor!?) Ev 2 (ala Scott & Fross): If we must draw the conclusion that this wasp was designed, then 'reductio ad absurdum' the "designer" is an evil being. Ergo, evolution is the better "theory." 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. ColumboColumbo
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Heh, funny. Instead of providing an answer they start religion-based attacks. What is it with Darwinists and bringing religion up all the time, anyway?Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
BenK, Is it "fairly well documented" that divine intelligent agents can perform brain surgery?Arnhart
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
The wasp didn't have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned.Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Tribune7: > Your view is that that is happenstance? Absolutely not. The single most basic premise of the theory of natural selection is that the results are based on anything but chance.DJGibbon
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
It is frightening what humans can choose to do, due to the existance of free-will. But this is starting to sound philosophical and not scientific.Scott
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
I believe this is what Jeffrey Dahmer did as well. I know he performed brain surgery on one kid and applied chemicals directly to his brain where he then tried to mate with him until he died and was later used as a meal. Unfortunately I saw this discussed during his trial and wish I could un-learn it.Fross
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Yes, that poor poor cockroach. What an insidious being this designer must be. :roll: "Imagine" for a moment that the wasp had the basic information encoded to "develop" such features if certain environmental variables were present. Does that take the edge off a tad, maybe? Just my crazy imagination maybe.Scott
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Arnhart; it is fairly well documented that intelligent agents can perform brain surgery. It's also fairly well documented that intelligent agents can create sedatives. Finally, it's well documented that intelligent agents can create automata. It doesn't seem like such a leap to believe that an intelligent agent could design an automaton which could create sedatives and perform brain surgery.BenK
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
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. Your view is that that is happenstance? I emphasize the word “imagine” because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Sounds like a John Lennon song :-)tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
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
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
I'd hate to meet the maniac designer that came up with this. *shiver*Fross
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Those wasps would be in trouble if Sigourney Weaver was a cockroach.tribune7
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Yes, Dave: if anything is proof of a God, it's this charming creature!trystero57
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
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.DJGibbon
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
That's our problem. We don't have the ability to turn imagination into reality. Evolutionists, on the other hand, have the ability to do so pretty much at will. That is in their own little "reality". They should go work for GE- "Imagination at Work" (I guess GE figured they couldn't bring anything to life).Joseph
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply