Slashdot Mirror


Wasp Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches

TheUploader writes "The story leaves nothing to embellish: The wasp, Ampulex compressa, has evolved to inject a toxin into a specific part of a roach's brain, turning it into a zombie. The wasp then leads the zombie roach into the wasp's nest, lays eggs inside it, and waits for its young to hatch, who will then go on to do the same to more roaches."

435 comments

  1. More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    of God's Intelligent Design on Earth

    1. Re:More proof.. by tibike77 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      First of all, the link is /. already, so I won't be able to comment on the contents, yet.
      However, let me just tell you that "Intelligent Design" can not be logically PROVED, just as much as it cannot be disproved... it's just a theory with a "limbo-like" life.
      I guess it's just flamebait, isn't it ? And I took it :P

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    2. Re:More proof.. by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      Sir, you deserve +5 funny for that remark.

      Thanks for starting my day with a laugh.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I guess it's just flamebait, isn't it ? And I took it :P


      Nope. I believe it was more of a joke. And you didn't get it. :P

      Note: I'm not the original poster.
    4. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      of God's Intelligent Design on Earth

      Parasitism was one of the reasons that Charles Darwin lost his faith in later years. How could a loving God create so much suffering?

    5. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty easy when you're not the one doing the suffering.

    6. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pretty amazing thing to have evolved, all right. You've got to keep one thing in mind: roaches are old. They are ecosystems unto themselves. This is an example of complexity emerging from competition -- the parasite and the host have probably had a half-billion years to work on this particular interaction.

      A scientist looks at this with wonder; a religionist looks at it with awe; a cynic looks at it thinking, "What kind of screwed-up God would inflict something like this on a poor roach?" An apologist will answer, "It all goes back to the fall of Man, when the entire world was corrupted." Things will then go downhill from there.

      I prefer to take my leave at the "wonder" stage, personally.

    7. Re:More proof.. by Creosote · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mark Twain also saw wasp parasitism in particular as an argument against benevolent design. See, for example, his late sketch "Little Bessie".

    8. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows that Time Travel is the only real religion:

      http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Time_Travel_Religion

    9. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Absolutely! You, sir, have proved that if this was intelligently designed, then the designer was one sick fucker.

    10. Re:More proof.. by BLAG-blast · · Score: 2, Funny
      Parasitism was one of the reasons that Charles Darwin lost his faith in later years. How could a loving God create so much suffering?

      Well, obviously the cockroach was a sinner. It doesn't happen to cockroaches who are good and don't commit sins.

      Repend! Repend! Or W.A.S.P.s will lay eggs in your brain.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    11. Re:More proof.. by no_pets · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad He didn't help intelligently design their web server. It's /.ed already.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    12. Re:More proof.. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mark Twain is the Prophet of God and the Word that he speaks is True.

    13. Re:More proof.. by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Funny

      How could a loving God create so much suffering? Biblically speaking, we were created in god's images. As the old saying goes, we hurt the ones we love. So, god must do the same, just on a much grander scale.

      Or maybe god is just really in to S&M. He just forgot to give us a safe word...

    14. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait?? WTF???
      The parent is right when he says that ID cannot be proved or dissproved and that is presicely why it is NOT a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory!

      sheesh!

    15. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you prove that it can't be proven or not?

    16. Re:More proof.. by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, it can't be disproven either. I find it hilarious when people point this out, because science, by definition, is experimental study of the natural world. When you leave the realm of the natural world, it isn't science anymore. That doesn't mean there isn't anything outside of the natural world, it just means that we can't come to any conclusions about it scientifically.

    17. Re:More proof.. by Da+Masta · · Score: 2, Funny

      He just forgot to give us a safe word...

      But he did give us one -- his name, however it is you pronounce it.

    18. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But logically speaking, you can't argue:

      If
      God is all powerful
      God is all knowing
      God is all Loving
      then
      Why Suffering?

      because Loving and Suffering are two subjective statements, and is strictly relative those who subscribe to those two ideas. This makes that argument illogical, because in the end, everyones love and suffering is different.

    19. Re:More proof.. by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      Because he gave us a thing called free will. Disobeying him (sinning) is what causes pain and suffering, whether for ourselves or others. If you consider a god who controls us on strings like zombies loving, then I would have to agree with your statement.

    20. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could a good parent let a child ride a bike, risk having their heart broken, let them climb a mountain. Utopia is a recipe for stagnation and despair, solving problems is where humanity's talents shine, the right to choose to fix them or ignore them is part of the bargain. Free Will Baby, Its a Bitch and it's is a Treasure!!!

    21. Re:More proof.. by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      He just forgot to give us a safe word...
      Or maybe he's being a dick for all we know.

    22. Re:More proof.. by eMartin · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's boingboinged from a bit earlier.

      http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp_performs _roachb.html

    23. Re:More proof.. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      So when I fall and scrape my knee it is because of a sin?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    24. Re:More proof.. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Or maybe he's being a dick for all we know.

      This tends to be my ultimate point in arguments with religious nuts. Even if you can convince me that faith is better than proof, etc., I still don't like God very much. I mean, we tend to put people who behave like that in prisons or asylums, and I'm supposed to worship the guy?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    25. Re:More proof.. by IamLarryboy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      " ... we were created in god's images. As the old saying goes, we hurt the ones we love. So, god must do the same ..."

      Your argument as I understand it including implied elements:

      Christians claim, "God is good."
      We also claim, "Humans are like God."
      Humans are bad
      ----------
      Therefore
      ----------
      Christianity is ridiculous because both claims cannot be true.

      However one of your premises is false and your argument fails. We were created in Gods image. That does not imply that we remained in that state. Infact it is a central tennet of Christianity that we did not remain in that state. That we are fallen, or bad.

      As an aside, far from your intention of dismissing Christianity you have explicitly acknowledged one of its central premises. That is, humans are inherently bad.

    26. Re:More proof.. by Chrononium · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When the United States sent over all of those troops (i.e. fathers and sons) to Europe and the Pacific to combat an enemy threatening all of humanity, was there a lot of suffering at home? Yes. Did many of those boys die pointless deaths in Normandy and beyond? Yes. Was the suffering bad? Yes. Was the suffering senseless? NO.

      Do not presume that if humans do not know the reason behind the suffering that there is no reason. That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided.

      Attach the butterfly effect to something as "senseless" as a parasite slowly consuming its host and its following generations and you end up with a very complex picture. Perhaps, just maybe, all those environmentalists chanting that everything is connected are right.

    27. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is "repent", moron.

    28. Re:More proof.. by norton_I · · Score: 1

      Yes, indirectly. Various flavors of Christians interpret this slightly differently, but that is the idea behind original sin. Humanity was created in a state of paradise, but given free will. When we choose to sin, we were expelled from paradise and became subject to death, disease, injury, and all of those other things.

    29. Re:More proof.. by jav1231 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That doesn't stop Slashdot from turning into a diatribe on Bush and God anytime a bug post, political post...okay ANY post is posted these days. That and an ID vs. Evolution battle. So much for technology. First of all if evolution is the final word there's nothing "technological" about it. Same with ID. It just seems that so many evolutionists on Slashdot are so the same way they're liberal: basically they a) want to be with the crowd and b) they afraid someone somewhere is wiretapping their phones or videotaping their every move to find out if they masterbate.

    30. Re:More proof.. by b100dian · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mark Twain is the Prophet of God and the twains that He marks are Two.

      --
      gtkaml.org
    31. Re:More proof.. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      "Do not presume that if humans do not know the reason behind the suffering that there is no reason. That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided."

      Remember you said that when you're diagnosed with bowel cancer, or your wife is raped, or when some other similar tragedy strikes in your life.

    32. Re:More proof.. by atokata · · Score: 2, Funny

      This from a guy who advocates killing for peace in his sig. If you don't get it when it's spelled out like that, you probably never will.

    33. Re:More proof.. by drDugan · · Score: 1

      there are many different utpoian visions, and yes some are stagnant. not all.

    34. Re:More proof.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think we were really created in God's image unless God was little more than a subservient monkey, which is what Adam and Eve were before the serpent made them eat the apple. The apple is what turned them into humans. Yet we are told to yearn for the days when we were still monkeys and be ashamed for being what we are (inherited sin and all that nonsense)? Did the Greek demonize Prometheus? Then why do we demonize the serpent and ourselves?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    35. Re:More proof.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot makes his servants capable of disobedience if he didn't have to?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:More proof.. by alienburrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      proof of inteligent design indeed. The Flying spaghetti monster is an amazing being indeed.

    37. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your mouth to... the ears of Twain. Anyhoo, defensive much? Just because nature provides realistic counter-examples to blind adherence to faith doesn't mean you should cover your eyes and get upset. Open your eyes. See the world. It is around you and no matter how much you pout, it is where you live. You can't force yourself to ascend to some higher plane just by thinking or even praying. You, like everyone else, have to wait until you die to see if you were right or you were wrong. In the meantime, you are here on earth and to deny that wasp parasitism provides a compelling and realistic counter-example to blind faith is to deny the world. You can do that, but again you'll have to wait until you die to know if you were right or you wrong. Some of us, here in the living breathing world of life, are busy doing just that: living. Not waiting until death to see if some, and this is the only honest perspective while you yet live, imaginary thing is going to do some imaginary other thing and maybe, oh just maybe, you'll have been right to ridicule Mark Twain. I suppose he actually knows. Or, more than likely, not. As knowing takes a canvas on which the certainty can be recorded. And that canvas, well, it has been digested by a billion hungry bacteria by now. So, ah shucks. Aunt Polly is goin' be mad.

    38. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, oh please, just ONE freaking thread where I do not have to see the words "Intelligent Design." I'm having a difficult time figuring out which side houses the fanatics.

    39. Re:More proof.. by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      "However one of your premises is false and your argument fails. We were created in Gods image. That does not imply that we remained in that state. Infact it is a central tennet of Christianity that we did not remain in that state. That we are fallen, or bad."

      God, if one exists and is perfect, must have free will . Insofar as we were created in his image or his spiritual likeness, we too have free will. Humans just have limited faculties of understanding. We succumb to temptation. God, on the other, hand does not. That's not to say that God COULDN'T do something evil, unjust, or wrong. God just always choses the moral high ground. Why would anyone want to worship an automaton of goodness? That would be as fulfilling as God creating beings that only do good and worship him.

      I guess what I'm saying is that, like God, humans have free will. God, being perfect, will always choose good things (not because he HAS to but because that is what he wants), where humans are imperfect and will not always choose good. Humans are, theoretically, capable of only choosing good (otherwise Jesus, who was a human, whether or not he was the embodiment of God, could not have been perfect), we just typically lack the desire to do only good and we lack the omniscience to see whether our choices are actually good or just seem good. So, I think we are still "in the image of God", we are just more inclined to do evil because we lack the level of understanding that God has.

      That's what you get when you let an atheist think about theology.

      That said, my original post was in jest (I wasn't trying to tear down Christianity... just making a joke). The mods just got confused... Or maybe the "+1 Insightful" and "+1 Interesting" options are too close to the "+1 Funny".

    40. Re:More proof.. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I don't think we were really created in God's image unless God was little more than a subservient monkey, which is what Adam and Eve were before the serpent made them eat the apple. The apple is what turned them into humans.

      Which, of course, was the whole reason for the tree being there in the first place. Of course an omniscient God would know exactly what would happen; I don't think that anyone wouldn't guess the end result, for that matter.

      Yet we are told to yearn for the days when we were still monkeys and be ashamed for being what we are (inherited sin and all that nonsense)?

      I can't recall reading any such yearning from the Bible; however, it is late and I'm tired, and I've never actually read the whole book end-to-end, so I may be wrong. Can anyone clarify this ?

      Did the Greek demonize Prometheus?

      No, just chained him to be tortured for a few thousand years ;).

      Then why do we demonize the serpent and ourselves?

      Because if this was all caused by the serpent, then it is not really our fault. If we were made evil by eating the fruit, then that isn't really our evil; if we can't do anything but evil, then we can't be really blamed for it, so we can keep on indulging in our worst whims with a clean conscience, because we can't really help it. However, that excuse can only be valid if we are so hopelessly evil that we can't possibly do anything but evil, so demonizing yourself makes you less evil, by that twisted logic.

      And of course there's the aspect of appearing very humble by going on and on about how horrible and hopeless you are. Not to mention trying to appeal to pity...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cockroaches and wasps could have evolved for 10^68 years and that still wouldn't have been enough time for something this complex to have occurred via natural selection.

      Better luck next time.

    42. Re:More proof.. by killjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think he got it messed up though. You are supposed to stop inflicting pain once somebody says the safe word.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    43. Re:More proof.. by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      A loving one. And remember, we were created to love him, not to do everything he says. (note: loving him is one of the things he says to do) After all, if he's omnipotent, do he need someone to shine his shoes?

    44. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, its not our fault if bad things happen to us, because the all loving all caring all powerful god is still punishing us for a pair of people stealing some fruit a few thousand years ago with all kinds of sadistic methods.

      Yeah, that really makes sense.

    45. Re:More proof.. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Ah...more technology nuggets of joy.

    46. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfection and free will are fundimentally impossible together. If one is perfect, and by perfect I mean perfect in all ways both knowledge and ability, then one can only make perfect decisions. Making an imperfect decision means that the being is imperfect. So a perfect entity cannot freely choose to make an imperfect decision.

      This always works against our creation. Since we are imperfect. Anything that created us must also be imperfect, by nature. Even if one attempts to explain this by saying we are part of a perfect process and our limitations are just parts of a whole, then one must acknowledge that benevolence is not an element of the perfection. And that a perfect and benevolent God cannot be one in the same.

    47. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: It's a wasp doing it to a cockroach. We don't even know if the things feel pain or pleasure and until Dr Gonzo decides to go apeshit and reverse engineer nature, we won't know. For all we know the cockroach could be having so much intense orgasmic pleasure after being stung it considers it a fair trade. If there were gigantic insects that began doing that to humans, I'd put more credit on the point, wait for them to clean out all the sicko's, then invent gigantic mecha and go nuke the hive.

      2: Predatory activity is a part of the world. Without predators who'd we have to fight and strive against? We'd be in a constant state of fighting ennui, which isn't so bad either.

      3: In the Bible, humans were given dominion over the earth, and what did they do? They decide instead of developing some intestinal fortitude and working hard together, that instead, they'd become social predators. You create your own horrid state of affairs by participating in this predatory cycle by allowing yourself to become someone's prey.

      One of the differences between a liberal and a conservative is the liberal says "I'v been put in a state of affairs I cannot get out of" whereas the conservative believes "Allright, I'm knee deep in shit and I'v got no shovel, what can I do to get out?". The liberal mentality is that of a slave; they will allow themselves to be put into a position and they will stay there. The conservative mentality is that of a freeman. The conservative may never be able to get out of the gigantic pile of shit, but at least they can have a good time trying.

      4: Fact is, the bible also says people have the god-given right of making decisions for no particular reason whatsoever; it's called free choice. Does the cockroach or wasp have the ability to do what it wants? More to the point, there are plenty of things in nature that are freaking scary man; tigers, lions, sharks, vultures. There was a bird of prey that apparently went around knocking the skulls of children open and waiting for their parents to leave them so it could eat.

      What did humans do? We started burying our dead, and we invented weapons so predatory animals finally figured out we'd be worthless to hunt. If a child is dragged off into the woods and eaten by a bear, why does everyone in the country town go into the woods, hunt bear, and eat bear for the next few months? Simple; teaches the bears that the humans mean business.

    48. Re:More proof.. by khallow · · Score: 1
      No, just chained him to be tortured for a few thousand years ;).

      Not by man. This was punishment by the Gods (and apparently only the latest in a series of attempted punishments including Pandora). Eventually even they relented and allowed Hercules to free Prometheus.

    49. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Because he gave us a thing called free will. Disobeying him (sinning) is what causes pain and suffering, whether for ourselves or others.

      So parasitic wasps are sinners?

    50. Re:More proof.. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "When we choose to sin," I assume you mean "chose", and I wonder why the choice "we" made didn't ask for my input. Seems like more of a "they." If you meant "choose," that doesn't make much sense when a baby gets dropped on its head now does it?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    51. Re:More proof.. by bhiestand · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This tends to be my ultimate point in arguments with religious nuts. Even if you can convince me that faith is better than proof, etc., I still don't like God very much. I mean, we tend to put people who behave like that in prisons or asylums, and I'm supposed to worship the guy?

      I think you'd enjoy reading The End of Pascal's Wager. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago, but Richard Carrier knows how to word things without sounding like an idiot...
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    52. Re:More proof.. by countach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Christianity says that all the earth is fallen because of man's sin. Why that would affect wasps isn't clear, but certainly it is not inconsistent with the Christian world view.

    53. Re:More proof.. by bhiestand · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      A loving one. And remember, we were created to love him, not to do everything he says. (note: loving him is one of the things he says to do) After all, if he's omnipotent, do he need someone to shine his shoes?

      Right, so why does Mr. Perfect get so lonely he has to create a whole planet filled with warmongering humans to love and worship him? That doesn't make any sense. That'd be an imperfection. Even my ex can go a day without somebody telling her she's great!

      Furthermore, if he really wants everyone to love him, why doesn't he quit fucking with society and come down and speak to us from the clouds or something. Or as like a 100' marshmallow man! Something that'd let the entire planet know, beyond any doubt, that he exists, as well as what he wants society to do. And while he's at it, tell him to bitch slap Pat Robertson and Usama Bin Laden.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    54. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

      because Loving and Suffering are two subjective statements, and is strictly relative those who subscribe to those two ideas

      Yeah, right. Tell that to the millions who die from unpleasant parasitic diseases each year - "Your suffering is only subjective".

    55. Re:More proof.. by plunge · · Score: 1

      So... threatening us with pain, suffering, death, and eternal damnation is called "respecting our free will"? And failing to create us so that we freely _choose_ to be good is supposedly because that would violate our free will?

      Tell us more of your crazy backwardspeak, Bizarro!

    56. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you put a man's son in prison because his father was a criminal, you're a monster. When god punishes you for the sins of your great great great great ... great great great grandfather, it's one of the central tenets of Christianity.

      The more Christians try to explain their views on god, the more I think they're worshiping a fucking psychopath.

    57. Re:More proof.. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      So.... if I hurt someone, and they experience pain, then it's okay because they must have deserved it because they sinned?

    58. Re:More proof.. by deimtee · · Score: 1

      "that doesn't make much sense when a baby gets dropped on its head now does it?"

      Where do you think God gets new worshippers from?

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    59. Re:More proof.. by Liveandletlive · · Score: 0

      If he is omnipotent, why does he needs us to worship him? Just for fun? I mean why does he need us?

      Also, by the way, how do we know that God is "he" and not "she" or "it"?

      --
      I know the world exists because I exist.
    60. Re:More proof.. by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      This definitely proves it. Whatever creator intelligently designed these creatures is a serious bastard.

    61. Re:More proof.. by Overlanda · · Score: 0

      RTFA next time before you post. The article talks about imagining that the wasp evolved. Not really an argument against ID.

    62. Re:More proof.. by zeketp · · Score: 1

      Why would a loving God create predators? Why did He create anything? Who said God was loving? If you had ever read the Bible, you would know that in the Old Testament, God was all about smiting. But seriously, before you mod me down for dissing your religion: It is my religion too. People often forget that the Bible as it is now has been through so many revisions that it is almost certain all the original intentions and meanings in it have been obscured beyond recovery (ever heard the phrase "lost in translation" ?). Also, keep in mind the Bible wasn't handed down by God in absolute, immutable perfection (unlike, say, the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be an addition and correction to things left out or screwed up in the Bible). The Bible was originally a compilation of stories made by human editors, influenced by their own ideas, then edited by those who wish to use it for their own purposes. Many stories were cut along the way, many intentionally modified to convey different messages, and some were just left out from the start because someone didn't agree with them.
       
      Makes me wonder if in the future people will worship a religion based off modern day stories that are deemed miracles or unexplainable, just because people would rather call it a miracle than try and figure it out.

      --
      Last Post!
    63. Re:More proof.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the roaches are the sinners.

      The parasitic wasps are just the tool of God.

    64. Re:More proof.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The (catholic) church said people go to hell by default because of the original sin for centuries (even though Jesus was supposed to have made up for that sin). It's not in the bible but the church saw an opportunity to make people feel guilty and sell them redemption (granted, that was only for a very short part of that time). At very least that part of the bible established the convention of treating women as inferiors that wasn't abolished for millenia and even today has traces left.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    65. Re:More proof.. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      A scientist looks at this with wonder; a religionist looks at it with awe
      A lawyer thinks "Nice trick, I wonder if I could do something like that?".
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    66. Re:More proof.. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      just ONE freaking thread where I do not have to see the words "Intelligent Design."
      Look for a story about windows security or open-source usability. Your bugbear phrase is pretty unlikely to crop up there.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    67. Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      What's the big deal here, is everything on the face of the earth not a parasite? Does everything not live at the expense of something else? Do humans not eat animals? Does the lion not eat the zebra? Does the zebra not eat grass? In fact probably the least parasitic is fungus and other such life forms, that mostly feed on dead things.

    68. Re:More proof.. by Destoo · · Score: 1

      Easy.. Repeat after me.

      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    69. Re:More proof.. by Da+Masta · · Score: 1

      ... more of those brilliant medical insights?

      Yeah, get your fucking head outta your ass, you'll be able to read better.

      Go re-read the grandparent post and the context that I quoted. Saying the name of God is supposed to save you from the big S&M party we call life. Sure its corny, but I'm not exactly trying to come off as preachy.

      Actually, forget what I said, keep on eating shit -- you'll need practice for hell anyway.

    70. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      In fact probably the least parasitic is fungus and other such life forms, that mostly feed on dead things.

      Fungi can do very nasty things indeed. There is a fungus that takes over ants and controls their nervous systems so that they climb to the top of plants to allow dispersal of spores.

    71. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Do not presume that if humans do not know the reason behind the suffering that there is no reason. That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided.

      To me, this is the worst possible attempt at justifying things. "Yes, we are suffering, but it might be for our own good."

    72. Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      I probably should have used vultures or some such example of something that feeds mostly off dead things. But your example certainly raises the question of intelligent design, but maybe not benevolent design.

    73. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      But your example certainly raises the question of intelligent design, but maybe not benevolent design.

      In no way does it raise the question of intelligent design. A parasite that invades the entire body is certainly going to have an effect on behaviour. It is easy to imagine that over hundreds of millions of years, certain behaviour that will spread the parasite better would be selected. There is no need for a designer.

    74. Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      So dirt of the ground just organizes itself into complex life forms, and then returns to dirt of the ground again of it's own volition? There is no mystery here at all, there does not need to be any explanation of "cause and effect" you only have to deal with the "process" that connects the "effect with the cause" and ignore the fact that scientifically there always has to be a "cause". How scientific is that?

      We can only speculate what that cause might be, but certainly if one of the "effects" (humans) is deemed to be intelligent, (maybe) then by deduction should the cause not be deemed intelligent too? Or is it a very scientific theory, and does not affront everyday reason, that dirt of the ground could all on its own turn into a complex brain, that by all accounts produces thought and reason, and then turn back into dirt of the ground which by all accounts cannot produce thought and reason, and then claim there is no other agency involved? No mystery here at all, science has got this major question all covered in the usual way, by ignoring it.

    75. Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      So dirt of the ground just organizes itself into complex life forms, and then returns to dirt of the ground again of it's own volition?

      Yes.

      There is no mystery here at all, there does not need to be any explanation of "cause and effect" you only have to deal with the "process" that connects the "effect with the cause" and ignore the fact that scientifically there always has to be a "cause". How scientific is that?

      No-one is ignoring the fact that there has to be a cause. The point is that the cause does not need to be intelligent. There are some wonderful features of Nature that appear whenever there are flows of energy far from equilibrium. You get patterns. You get things organising themselves into complex structures spontaneously, with no need for intervention.

      We can only speculate what that cause might be, but certainly if one of the "effects" (humans) is deemed to be intelligent, (maybe) then by deduction should the cause not be deemed intelligent too?

      Actually, the cause of our intelligence IS intelligent - it us and other animals. By competing, we select certain features. By competing and facing up to the challenges of life over millions of years, intelligence has been selected and refined.

      Or is it a very scientific theory, and does not affront everyday reason, that dirt of the ground could all on its own turn into a complex brain, that by all accounts produces thought and reason, and then turn back into dirt of the ground which by all accounts cannot produce thought and reason, and then claim there is no other agency involved?

      Everyday reason has no place in understanding this, as the factors involved are beyond everyday reason. No-one can concieve of a million years, let alone a billion. No-one can concieve of the trillions of combinations of molecules that were present on the early Earth that let to life. Why should something as majestic as life be subject to something as petty as human 'everyday reason'. On the other hand, science has the tools to deal with things that we can't concieve.

    76. Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      his is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas. What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from? A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent? If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process. What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason. Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific? Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened. I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."

    77. Re:More proof.. by sick_nerd · · Score: 1

      Has anyone else noticed how like life this is?
      You're walking along, a happy chappy, knowing that not even an atomic bomb can stop you when bam! you get stung twice (onece for luck) then paralyses your brain, leads you to their burrow, lays eggs inside you which then hatch and eat you. Marriage is the only word needed for clarification.

  2. Now... by dmitrygr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now how do we get one into Bush/Gates/[insert your favorite villain here]?

    --
    -------
    1. Enjoy your job
    2. Make lots of money
    3. Work within the law

    Choose any two.
    1. Re:Now... by jimbo3123 · · Score: 1

      You say this like they aren't there already.

      --
      There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
    2. Re:Now... by itsmekirby · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not sure that zombifying Bush would help him in his presidency all that much. ... Then again...

    3. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ask Cheney/Rumsfeld & Pat Robertson...

    4. Re:Now... by ericdano · · Score: 2, Funny

      Howard Dean has been under a Wasp's control since before the election.......

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    5. Re:Now... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bush has never been about anything other than serving his WASP masters.

    6. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you are too late for Bush, it seems quite clear something has already injected a paralysis toxin into his brain.

    7. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking how much this wasp species reminded me of the Republican party, or maybe Fox News channel. Of course, WASP has other meanings as well. But it turns out that most of Bush's support comes from unthinking zombies. And they cross all races, creeds, religions, regions, and any othe demographics you can imagine. Wake up people. Get this toxin out of your brains and start thinking. The slanted news media ain't going to give you the answers necessary to solve the problems we all face as human beings today. Neither is a lying politician -- one who has already been convicted of a crime and appears to have committed millions of criminal offenses in five years.

    8. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think someone already did that, at least with bush :P

    9. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some semblance of intelligence denotes resolving problems instead of simply being an opposition party. That said, the same thing could be said of leading Democrats these days.

    10. Re:Now... by Xiroth · · Score: 1

      I think it's safe to say that if we created a 10-foot version of these they'd naturally go after politicians as the closest analogy to cockroaches at this scale. Unfortunately, this wouldn't deal with Bush, since they need a brain to work on.

    11. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But it turns out that most of Bush's support comes from unthinking zombies. And they cross all races,
      > creeds, religions, regions, and any othe demographics you can imagine. Wake up people. Get this toxin
      > out of your brains and start thinking.

      One of the biggest blunders you can make in politics is to assume that just because someone has different values than you do, they are automatically stupid/unthinking/evil/dangerous (or harmless).

      I've met a few intelligent liberals and a few intelligent conservatives, but most people act out of emotion, assumptions and prejudices instead of logic. I'm convinced that intelligence has nothing to do with which direction your compass is pointing.

    12. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genius!

    13. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supporting Bush today is an inherently value-less proposition. You have to have your head in the sand and deny the reality of who this guy is and what he has done. It really is mind-less. I do understand your general point and adhere to it in the general case. But not here. Choosing to ignore makes one a mindless zombie. Supporting Bush requires exactly those traits. I really hope these people do wake up and start thinking. It is important to deal with reality and not pretend it doesn't exist. The consequences of this behavior are just too devestating.

  3. No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by kalpol · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have fuel for my nightmares now for several more years, thanks!

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by qeveren · · Score: 1

      I have fuel for my erotic fiction now for several more years, thanks!

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    2. Re:No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an early episode of TNG: "Conspiracy". It's the one where these aliens take control of starfleet by living in the heads of the humans, leaving a telltale tail sticking out at the back of the neck... http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/e pisode/68356.html

      --
      Be relentless!
    3. Re:No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by TropicalCoder · · Score: 0

      I have fuel for my nightmares now for several more years, thanks!

      Did you ever consider that maybe the roach gets injected with pleasure causing endorphins, and spends the last days of it's little life in complete and total ecstasy? Remember that cow in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe who was bred to consider it a great honour to be eaten? - perhaps the cockroaches are something like that - the wasp is their god, and all roaches strive to be good enough to be Chosen

    4. Re:No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOu can bet your ass the military industrial complex and the intelligence bureaus are all over this one. Ten years from now this shit will be happening to us.

      It's politically incorrect to say this but I really got the creeps when I learned this was being studies in Israel. I don't mean to slander a whole country but I just got the creeps.

    5. Re:No need to rent Kingdom of the Spiders! by rizzo420 · · Score: 0, Troll

      slander away... israel is full of as many terrorists as palestine and iraq... they just happen to be our allies so we won't admit to it. and because jews hold so many high places in our country (like all of hollywood), we won't go against what israel is doing either... we'll just watch them continue in their terrorist ways and fund it too.

      i'm not anti-semitic or anything, in fact, i have jewish relatives. i just disagree with israeli politics. i'll even sign my name to this one...

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
  4. Oy... by MacUNIX · · Score: 0, Redundant

    and....slashdotted...

  5. slasdot by Nico3d3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looks like we already have another victim of the slashdot effect... Is there a mirror of this site somewhere?

    1. Re:slasdot by dmitrygr · · Score: 2, Informative

      here, hope this can handle slashdot. http://www.palmpowerups.com/priv/mirror.pdf

      --
      -------
      1. Enjoy your job
      2. Make lots of money
      3. Work within the law

      Choose any two.
  6. MMM! by rob_squared · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What wonderful breakfast conversation.

    Anyway, I think I detect an IgNobile prize winner here.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:MMM! by Nataku564 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe this had been discovered quite some time ago. I seem to remember watching an episode of Nature (or something similar) that featured this particular wasp. In addition to injecting the toxin, it also snips off the antennae (disorienting it), and uses the stubs to herd it into its tomb.

    2. Re:MMM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "news" was already in 1976 book "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins.

    3. Re:MMM! by bohemian72 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds vaguely like marriage.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  7. Real-Live Goa'uld by kyle90 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just think about it... we'd better eradicate this species before they become a threat to our planet.

    --
    Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
    1. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by tibike77 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, I, for one, really do like to welcome our new wasp zombie-master overlords ;)

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    2. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by plalonde2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We already have White Anglo-Saxon Protestant zombie-herding overloads...

    3. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No they don't control the roaches mind. They inject a drug that pacifies the roach, then they control it with its antennae kinda like reins. Not direct mind control of any sort.

    4. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do. The wasp stings it once in the midsection of the roach to pacify it then inserts its stinger again into the roaches brain which then releases a neurotoxin that it uses to control the roach. It's a two step process.

    5. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by LordRPI · · Score: 1

      There are other parasites that infect grasshoppers and snails in a fashion more similar to the Goa'uld.

    6. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by SillySnake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i.e. Americans

    7. Re:Real-Live Goa'uld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Captain Obvious.

  8. Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know where Bill Gates got the idea!!

  9. The usual slashdot effect by cheebie · · Score: 1

    Looks like Slashdot already turned their server into
    a zombie.

    1. Re:The usual slashdot effect by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      yep. mirror anyone?

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
  10. sounds familiar by Paladin144 · · Score: 4, Funny
    The wasp, Ampulex compressa, has evolved to inject a toxin into a specific part of a roach's brain, turning it into a zombie.

    Man, I think I've been on a date with that WASP. I woke up the next morning with no money, a splitting headache and size seven poopshoot.

    1. Re:sounds familiar by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you determine poop shoot sizes? Is there a standard scale based on a metric or imperial measurement?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:sounds familiar by tlynch001 · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a LAN party that must've been!

    3. Re:sounds familiar by heinousjay · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's actually based on hat size, to facilitate understanding how people get their head up there.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your poopie hole was violated?

    5. Re:sounds familiar by Achra · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +1 Terrifying!

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    6. Re:sounds familiar by mrogers · · Score: 5, Funny

      The standard unit is the milligoatse.

    7. Re:sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I'm not surprised that you know this, Mr. "Rogers".

    8. Re:sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy shit, please mod parent up!

    9. Re:sounds familiar by jdclucidly · · Score: 1

      Thank you, my life is now complete.

  11. Hmm... by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somewhere there's a Romero zombie rolling over in its grave. Then crawling out. And eating someone's brains.

    1. Re:Hmm... by LouisZepher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incidentally, today is Romero's birthday...

    2. Re:Hmm... by MukiMuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just for clarification, Romero never made brain eating zombies. His particular breed just ate people alive. (best part of a zombie movie, really, is when they decide to rip someone to pieces. See : Shaun of the Dead, or any of Romero's films)

      The brain-eating cliché came from Return of the Living Dead, which had nothing to do with Romero's movie, save for a producer involved, I believe.

      To be quite honest, I thought this wasp had stronger horror movie ties to the Alien series, and was probably even a direct influence on Giger's design (or was the Ridley's? I'm not sure who invented the creature's actual properties). I mean, when they hatch, those wasp larvae DO in fact, eat their way out of the roach.

      errr, thanks to Wikipedia, a clarification on that Romero bit :
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Living_ Dead

      - peace

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent down, stop the ipod/mac mini scams.

    4. Re:Hmm... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point... rolling over in one's grave is usually a sign of something the person wouldn't approve of. Hence, the zombies (since Romero is alive and well) roll over in their graves, then go on to do something from the goofy comedy 'sequel' instead of Romero's more serious horror sequels.

    5. Re:Hmm... by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, and if we want to get pedantic, Romero zombies never ate anybody's brains. They mostly went for the guts. It was "Return of the Living Dead," the comedy/horror take-off on the Romero films, that brought in all the brain-eating.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other name for the toxin? GHB!

    7. Re:hmm... by shitdrummer · · Score: 1

      I bet the stuff about oxygen and metabolism is true as well.

      That's why you should never eat the food at the caf.

      Oh, and take up smoking... It gets you out of the building for fresh air every hour or so.

      :)

      Shitdrummer.

    8. Re:Hmm... by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Just for clarification, Romero never made brain eating zombies. His particular breed just ate people alive.

      Well, eating people alive would tend to include the brains as well. Unless, you know, the zombies are concerned about Kreuzfelt-Jacobs of course.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    9. Re:Hmm... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      I know this, I just mentioned it because I thought it was appropriate for the article.

  12. I just moved to New York City by SetupWeasel · · Score: 5, Funny

    so I'd like to say...

    SUCK IT YOU FUCKING ROACHES!

    I feel better now.

    1. Re:I just moved to New York City by clump · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yea, typical New Yorker remark. You'll fit right in.

    2. Re:I just moved to New York City by dotslash · · Score: 1

      I'm also in NY, but rather than glee I have a better plan:

      WHERE CAN I BUY SOME OF THESE WASPS?

      I have a plentiful food source for them.

    3. Re:I just moved to New York City by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh yeah, well suck it yourself, buddy. -The New York roaches

    4. Re:I just moved to New York City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this good fellow up, please.

  13. you can not make this up... by yurigoul · · Score: 1

    ... so it must be real, is what a friend of mine - a theater-play director - used to say.

    1. Re:you can not make this up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, a theater play director said that.
      what amazing insight.

  14. Welcome by mlawmlaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Roaches have apparently been taken over -- 'conquered' if you will -- by a master race of giant space wasps. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the wasps will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground honey caves.

    1. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasps don't make honey retard.

    2. Re:Welcome by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I recall, wasps are carnivores. They don't make honey.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:Welcome by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, you think they're only gonna enslave humans and cockroaches? Why stop there... Yesterday, the Cockroach... Today, Humanity. Tommorow - Honey Bees!

      Mmmm... Honey

    4. Re:Welcome by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      I think he was just doing his best to fit it in to the quote. Though he may be a retard as well ;)

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    5. Re:Welcome by linkdead · · Score: 1

      Oh shut the hell up!

      You just want to get into the hive queen's "honey cave", and nothing more!

  15. ... I knew a girl by JMZorko · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... who did the same sort of thing -- well, sorta :-)

    Regards

    John

    --
    Falling You - beautiful
    1. Re:... I knew a girl by arose · · Score: 1

      Adam, is that you?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:... I knew a girl by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      nice, if only he hadn't signed the post as john...

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    3. Re:... I knew a girl by zaxus · · Score: 1

      Maybe Eve was the world's first hooker. It would certainly help out with the genetics... :-)

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
  16. Zombies? Roaches? by schestowitz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Am I the only one who concluded from the title that Windows users are roaches? Mirror here, by the way. The site has been hammered. http://www.networkmirror.com/7uNI66ZP2A2tZOHx/loom .corante.com/archives/2006/02/02/the_wisdom_of_par asites.php.html

    --
    My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
  17. Hybrid by kalbzayn · · Score: 1

    Now if we can just get them to start biting humans we'll be one step closer to the dreaded human-animal hybrids. But, it seems like bugs are smarter than humans. They realized the cockroaches will be around a lot longer than us humans, so why waste their time with us.

    1. Re:Hybrid by sxpert · · Score: 1

      those hybrids are called Wraiths ;D

    2. Re:Hybrid by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking Goa'uld.

      Enter head, stick proby things into brain, enjoy!

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

  18. Use This Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Use This Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or this one: www.digg.com (The wisdom of parasites, submitted 2 days ago)

  19. Not really new... by massivefoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well the site appears to have been well and truly Slashdotted already. However, zombifying a creature for your own benefit isn't anything new.

    I seem to recall there exists a paracite who's lifecycle consists of:
    Be born in sheep shit.
    Get eaten by an ant.
    Zombify ant to cause it to climb grass, where it will be eaten by a sheep.
    Reproduce inside digestive system of sheep.

    If anyone who actually payed attention in biology classes cares to elaborate, please do!

    1. Re:Not really new... by NorbrookC · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're thinking of Dicrocoelium dendriticum, the sheep liver fluke. The eggs get passed out in the feces, and are eaten by a snail. The snail sheds a second-stage larvae, which is eaten by an ant. The parasite causes the ant to become negatively geotropic - it climbs up onto the grass - and is eaten by the sheep, where it grows into an adult and starts the whole process over.

    2. Re:Not really new... by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Are you sure that's the only species that does that though? I'm sure there was no snail mentioned in the text book I read it in. Then again, UK GCSEs are increasingly leaving out important bit/teaching things that are just plain wrong.

    3. Re:Not really new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about that one, but I believe Toxoplasma gondii affects rats' brains, making them less afraid of cats, which is how it gets into the feline digestive tract to reproduce...

      Andrew.

    4. Re:Not really new... by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 3, Funny
      You forgot:

      ...Profit!!

      --
      Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
    5. Re:Not really new... by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      could we use this to cure people who are afraid of heights? some how refine the stuff in the parasite that it uses to make the ant "negatively geotropic" and inject it into people?

    6. Re:Not really new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a fun worm that I have heard about that will infect a grasshopper, and then grow inside it, consuming all the parts of the grasshopper that is not needed for locomotion (ie, everything except the legs, heart, abd brain). It then secretes a nurochemical that sends the grasshopper t seek out a body of water, and then jump in, where it will drown (and the worm will break out of the exoskeleton, lay eggs and restart the cycle. I forget the species name however. Rabies virus also is an interesting "zombie" style paracite for mamals.

    7. Re:Not really new... by bcmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are many parasites/diseases which cause interesting self-destructive tendencies in the host which take the parasite to the next stage in it's life-cycle.

      Rabies causes extreme aggression in most mammals, causing them to infect another host by biting. There is a parasitic worm which causes grasshoppers to jump into water, where the worm's larvae have to live.

      This is exceptional because the wasp's stinger is actually inserted into a precise area of the brain of the victim, and because the wasp can actually steer the victim by stimulating it's antennae (I believe the same system has been tested on cockroaches by humans; they move away from the stimulated side by a protective reflex). Your ant parasite almost certainly doesn't have a sufficiently advance neural system to actually guide the ant upwards, rather it probably induces this behaviour by chemically triggering some signal the ant would use for more useful behaviour, the same way rabies causes dogs to pass on saliva by becoming aggressive.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    8. Re:Not really new... by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      Well, either that or you'll have a bunch acrophobes with an incredible urge to climb tall buildings... pissing themselves the entire way.

    9. Re:Not really new... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      could we use this to cure people who are afraid of heights?

            Initial clinical studies failed disastrously when the volunteers refused to come down from telephone poles unless they were first eaten by a goat...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Not really new... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "If anyone who actually payed attention in biology classes cares to elaborate, please do!"

      Yeah, Resident Evil 4 didn't go into much more detail than that. Thanks for that moment of deja vu. Hehe.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Not really new... by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Why are things that are marked +5 informative also +5 Gross?

  20. Slashdotted - Coral cache Link by Blahbooboo3 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Slashdotted - Coral cache Link by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      it seems the mirror has become another casualty to the slashdot effect. anyone know of any mirrors that can withstand a good slashdotting?

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
  21. The world is a scary place... by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I spent a summer in Ecuador in a field study class. We learned about one fungus that makes its living this way: Spores enter the body of an insect where they mature into the adult fungus. This adult fungus affects the mind of the bug so that it climbs to the tippy-top of whatever tree it's on. Then, when it's at the top it just sits there while the fungus consumes its innards. Finally, when the fungus is done growing, the body of the bug breaks open, and millions of spores go floating about on the wind.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:The world is a scary place... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fungus you refer to is mentioned in this article, which ironically was linked to from a past Slashdot story. They just call it an enslaver fungus, they don't actually name the species they are referring to.

      But it sounds like this type of adaptive mechanism is more common than you would think. Quite amazing actually - how on earth would a parasite evolve the right chemical signal to trigger its host to jump into water or perch at the top of a tree? Very bizarre.

    2. Re:The world is a scary place... by AlterTick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      how on earth would a parasite evolve the right chemical signal to trigger its host to jump into water or perch at the top of a tree?

      Randomly. That's kinda the idea behind evolution. The one's that didn't develop the right chemical trigger didn't get the distinct advantage of the climbing-slave-bug spore dispersal.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    3. Re:The world is a scary place... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      That, and bugs have horribly small and simple brains. Evolving the right toxin isn't that hard when there are only 10/100/1000 receptors for it to bond to, right?

    4. Re:The world is a scary place... by renoX · · Score: 1

      Another interesting bug is here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/0 3/1737245

      And I remember a BBC documentary on which there were some bugs which used 3 different type of animals to reproduce! Snails, goats and ants, see here: http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Schnecken/parasi tismus/dicrocoelium.html
      And they take control of the ants so that it can be easily eaten by goats.

      I was truly bewildered when I watched this BBC documentary, it's really incredible: no book author would write something like this: it would be reject as too 'far fetched' and yet..

    5. Re:The world is a scary place... by cnettel · · Score: 1
      Nah, that shouldn't matter, as there is no immediate "knowledge" of the search space in the fungus. It's more a question of whether there is any feedback in the system. If the ant had some higher regulatory system that made it think "wow, that fungus made me like heights, maybe I should stop eating those and go see a doctor", or even maybe just some regulation "all I see is the sky, walk down again", it would get far harder.

      However, another (far more interesting) idea would be that some genetic material was actually exchanged between the fungus and an ant, at some point. That would be indicated by a high level of sequence-homology in other parts of the gene involved, than just the specific receptor site.

    6. Re:The world is a scary place... by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Evolution, my dear Watson!

      My guess is that however many years ago, the fungus just infected and killed the poor bug. Maybe during the course of the infection, the bug did all kinds of crazy things, like a rabid animal. Then, after one or more random mutations happened, one of the crazy behaviors happened to be climbing upward. This benefitted the reproductive capability of that fungus, and bingo! Natural selection.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    7. Re:The world is a scary place... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >Randomly. That's kinda the idea behind evolution.

      Even if a thousand parasites find out about this independently, how does this knowedge/behaviour gets taught/passed down through the generations?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    8. Re:The world is a scary place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unsuccessful don't reproduce. Successfull are defined by surviving to reproduce.

    9. Re:The world is a scary place... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      dna

    10. Re:The world is a scary place... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      How can you control DNA? Say that you learn how to make 1,000,000 by figuring out how to make gold out of lead, how does this get embedded into DNA and on to the next generation? I think its a similar thing when you get parasites performing a specific set of tasks and attacking only a specific part of the brain of the target to get the target to do something.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    11. Re:The world is a scary place... by dhakbar · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about "behavior" in an organism so simple as fungus, it's all genetic. It's encoded in the parasite's DNA.

    12. Re:The world is a scary place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. Random Mutations cause fungus to attach to a specific creature's brain and cause it to kill itself... the problem with this is although it would be considered the fittest, it cannot survive since 'fittest' by definition survives long enough with the random mutation to pass that dna on to more generations

    13. Re:The world is a scary place... by product+byproduct · · Score: 1

      The fact that you figured out how to make gold out of lead shows that the skill is *already* embedded into your DNA -- or at least some predisposition to discover the process is embedded into your DNA.

      Even if you don't teach your kids how to do it, they share some of your DNA so they are slightly more likely to rediscover the same process on their own than other kids. After many many generations of "slightly more likely", we get to a point where every individual of the species reliably uses the process.

    14. Re:The world is a scary place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you control DNA?

      Natural selection. The organisim with the beneficial DNA is more likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore over time more and more of the species will exhibit the trait.

    15. Re:The world is a scary place... by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      how on earth would a parasite evolve the right chemical signal to trigger its host to jump into water or perch at the top of a tree?

      More evidence of Intelligent Design. By Satan.

      (cue distant, evil laugh) "muahahaha!"

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    16. Re:The world is a scary place... by bandannarama · · Score: 1
      Actually the point of natural selection is that it isn't amazing at all -- it's inevitable.

      Natural selection suggests that there very likely have been thousands or millions of such fungal species, each of them happening to produce some chemical byproducts as part of its life processes. The vast majority of the time, those byproducts don't have a positive effect on the survival of the species because they're neutral or negative in their environment. But it just so happens that in this species, in this environment (the bug's body and the availability of trees), this particular chemical accidentally happened to have a positive effect on the species' survival, and therefore the species happens to be visible to us observers today.

      It's only amazing if it's thought of from an intelligent design perspective. Nature is constantly running billions of little experiments, some of which occasionally contribute meaningfully to the next round of experiments.

      (As an OT aside, this sort of thing is why the free market works. Stay with me here. :) Capitalism in the free market leads to entrepreneurs constantly running millions of little experiments (businesses), some of which occasionally contribute meaningfully to the next round of experiments (larger businesses/prosperity). In this mental model, Soviet-style central planning is equivalent to Intelligent Design; the problem is that the Central Committee is not infinitely intelligent (unlike the purported Intelligent Designer) and couldn't possibly do as well as the comparatively out-of-control but ultimately more productive free market.)

      --
      Bandannarama
    17. Re:The world is a scary place... by headonfire · · Score: 3, Funny

      i almost flipped a shit when i read in the newscientist article:

      "To view a video of the parasite and grasshopper in action, which includes a brief interview, in French..."

      An interview with a parasite-infected grasshopper moments before death? in FRENCH? Now THAT is journalism, my friends!

    18. Re:The world is a scary place... by Myrthe · · Score: 1
      It might make more sense to think of this the other way 'round. All fungi spray chemical signals all over the place all the time. A type of fungus that happens to win the lotto and get itself zombie insect hosts is a dead cert to be way more successful than other fungi types, to spread and to stay around for us to learn about it.

      On your analogy. Say a thousand families learn how to make gold from lead, and only one is lucky enough to have it's children learn how as well. That one family is gonna get richer, and stay richer, than the other 999 families.

    19. Re:The world is a scary place... by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      The fungus you refer to is mentioned in this article, which ironically was linked to from a past Slashdot story. They just call it an enslaver fungus, they don't actually name the species they are referring to.

      That's just part of the life cycle of this story. It makes zombies out of slashdot editors and makes them post stories about itself over and over.

      --
      -Dave
    20. Re:The world is a scary place... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The fungus survives and passes on it's dna, I don't see what your problem is.

    21. Re:The world is a scary place... by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I've seen grasshopers jump into puddles and other bodies of water, swim to the other side, and climb out. It seemed to me that they were "bathing", if you will. So I don't know that that's all that unusual. What is unusual is that this time, when the cricket goes to bathe, a worm comes out and it dies.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    22. Re:The world is a scary place... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      It already has; the reason the fungus can do something is because this behavior has showed up in its dna (through mutation or other mechanisms). Fungi are simple, they don't learn in any real sense of the word they simply do what their dna tells them.

    23. Re:The world is a scary place... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, I recognize that - the question was really meant rhetorically, more as an exclamation than as a question. Apparently several people replying to my post thought I meant it as a surreptitious endorsement of intelligent design, which was not at all the case (as my posting history would indicate)!

      I do find it remarkable that such *specific* triggers would develop randomly, though clear that such triggers would yield such large survival advantages that they would undoubtedly dominate once they evolved.

      In any case, I thought it was quite an amazing adaptation as apparently did many other people. I wasn't trying to imply that I saw it as evidence of natural selection. I do think it would be very interesting to examine the genes that code for the particular toxins or neural triggering compounds and see what genes they are near and what the comparable region codes for in related species of fungus.

    24. Re:The world is a scary place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, and now I'll have to go change t-shirt, I just snorted coffee onto it.

  22. Sucks they're so efficient..... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they'd just go around stinging the roaches, rather than being efficient enough to lead just one back to the nest to raise more of them for food, you might be able to get rid of roach problems with these wasps. Evacuate a building for a while and drop some of these wasps in there. After a certain length of time, fumigate it to kill the wasps - and voila, no more bug problem!

    1. Re:Sucks they're so efficient..... by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Bright idea. Just like in that Simpsons Episode with the lizards...

    2. Re:Sucks they're so efficient..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just evacuate the building and fumigate for roaches.

    3. Re:Sucks they're so efficient..... by Barny · · Score: 1

      "Whats that smell?"

      "Oh, its just the dead roaches and wasps rotting in the walls"

      There was an old woman, who swallowed a fly... oh, you know that one allready?

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Sucks they're so efficient..... by WarpedMind · · Score: 1

      Uh..just wait a little longer and no more wasps. If the roaches are all gone, then the wasps will die off from lack of food or will move on to better breeding grounds.

  23. Evolved? I think not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wasp, Ampulex compressa, has evolved to inject a toxin...
    I think you meant it was designed to inject a toxin!

  24. Roach Motel... by sumi-manga · · Score: 0

    This really gives new meaning to "Roach Motel" for those Ampulex Compressas... But seriously, this seems a little like an overly viscous way to give birth.

    1. Re:Roach Motel... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      And to think people get so worked up about Jesus being born in a stable.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  25. I can't believe nobody has said it yet... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    *Puts on karma-protection suit and helmet*
    *Turns on microphone - tweeeeeeet -*

    *ahem ahem*

    Ready?

    Braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnsssssssss....

    *Ducks* :P

    1. Re:I can't believe nobody has said it yet... by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnsssssssss....

      Here's some topical ointment. And for God's sake, don't touch you're eye!

    2. Re:I can't believe nobody has said it yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get much ass, do ya?

    3. Re:I can't believe nobody has said it yet... by j-cloth · · Score: 1

      Recently heard at a zombie protest:

      Head Zombie: What do we want?
      Zombies: Braaaaaaiiiiinnnnssss
      Head Zombie: When do we want them?
      Zombies: Braaaaaaiiiiinnnnssss

  26. Not efficient? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    It seems that it would be more efficient to guide the roach into its nest, where there are presumably more roaches, than to take the roach away.

    That might be dangerous, though.

    1. Re:Not efficient? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      The current method of just fooling the inputs of the roach (and disabling the natural sensory functions) means that the wasp would need to know the way to the nest...

  27. Better Still. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. Slashdotted. Here is article text. by Exsam · · Score: 4, Informative
    Its some nifty-weird stuff.

    I collect tales of parasites the way some people collect Star Trek plates. And having filled an entire book with them, I thought I had pretty much collected the whole set. But until now I had somehow missed the gruesome glory that is a wasp named Ampulex compressa. As an adult, Ampulex compressa seems like your normal wasp, buzzing about and mating. But things get weird when it's time for a female to lay an egg. She finds a cockroach to make her egg's host, and proceeds to deliver two precise stings. The first she delivers to the roach's mid-section, causing its front legs buckle. The brief paralysis caused by the first sting gives the wasp the luxury of time to deliver a more precise sting to the head. The wasp slips her stinger through the roach's exoskeleton and directly into its brain. She apparently use ssensors along the sides of the stinger to guide it through the brain, a bit like a surgeon snaking his way to an appendix with a laparoscope. She continues to probe the roach's brain until she reaches one particular spot that appears to control the escape reflex. She injects a second venom that influences these neurons in such a way that the escape reflex disappears. From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach's antennae and leads it--in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex--like a dog on a leash. The zombie roach crawls where its master leads, which turns out to be the wasp's burrow. The roach creeps obediently into the burrow and sits there quietly, while the wasp plugs up the burrow with pebbles. Now the wasp turns to the roach once more and lays an egg on its underside. The roach does not resist. The egg hatches, and the larva chews a hole in the side of the roach. In it goes. The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days. It is then ready to weave itself a cocoon--which it makes within the roach as well. After four more weeks, the wasp grows to an adult. It breaks out of its cocoon, and out of the roach as well. Seeing a full-grown wasp crawl out of a roach suddenly makes those Alien movies look pretty derivative. I find this wasp fascinating for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it represents an evolutionary transition. Over and over again, free-living organisms have become parasites, adapting to hosts with exquisite precision. If you consider a full-blown parasite, it can be hard to conceive of how it could have evolved from anything else. Ampulex offers some clues, because it exists in between the free-living and parasitic worlds. Amuplex is not technically a parasite, but something known as an exoparasitoid. In other words, a free-living adult lays an egg outside a host, and then the larva crawls into the host. One could easily imagine the ancestors of Ampulex as wasps that laid their eggs near dead insects--as some species do today. These corpse-feeding ancestors then evolved into wasps that attacked living hosts. Likewise, it's not hard to envision an Ampulex-like wasp evolving into full-blown parasitoids that inject their eggs directly into their hosts, as many species do today. And then there's the sting. Ampulex does not want to kill cockroaches. It doesn't even want to paralyze them the way spiders and snakes do, since it is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third. The Israeli researchers found that they could also drop oxygen consumption in cockroaches by injecting paralyzing drugs or by removing the neurons that the wasps disable with their sting. But they can manage only a crude imitation; the manipulated cockroaches quickly dehydrated and were dead within six days. The

    --
    "To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
  29. Summary of Story by dasare1503 · · Score: 1

    I actually read about this yesterday through a friend's blog. Although the main link has been ./ he posted a nice summary.

    http://lifewithoutfries.blogspot.com/here.

    Yes, there are ads, but I couldn't find a summary of the story anywhere else and the main site is down.

  30. Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0

    Anyone want to try to explain how THIS evolved? If evolution is a series of small mutations, how would an organism go from NOT having this ability to being able to control the roach in such a manner?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ah yes... STFU. Brilliant. I should have realized this before. Sorry for wasting your time.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Evolved by AlterTick · · Score: 5, Informative
      Anyone want to try to explain how THIS evolved? If evolution is a series of small mutations, how would an organism go from NOT having this ability to being able to control the roach in such a manner?

      Many insects and arachnids paralyze or kill their prey with poison and lay eggs in, on, or near them. This is simply an interesting variation on that.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    3. Re:Evolved by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      how would an organism go from NOT having this ability to being able to control the roach in such a manner?

      That's the same question I keep asking about Cheney!

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:Evolved by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Are you actually a biologist and/or have spent years studying evolution theory? What makes you think you are qualified to even understand this stuff? Would you expect a layman to be able to understand the nuances of your chosen proffesion?

    5. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't bringing any reasonable alternative to the table, then why even say anything? Are you suggesting that this was not the result of a natural process or natural laws? Are you saying because we don't understand how this happened it must be the result of something supernatural? Are you attempting to explain some unknown with your God, your magic invisible gnome (like primitive people throughout time have done over and over)? Mystic be gone! You and your kind will gradually rot away. Good riddance and STFU! Woot!

    6. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you get it. You don't have to be an IDer to ask, "how does it work". Are you really such an idiot not to see that?

    7. Re:Evolved by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Would you expect a layman to be able to understand the nuances of your chosen proffesion?

      I would be curteous to a layman who asks about my profession rather than looking down upon his Puny Mortal Self.

    8. Re:Evolved by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTA:

      Amuplex is not technically a parasite, but something known as an exoparasitoid. In other words, a free-living adult lays an egg outside a host, and then the larva crawls into the host. One could easily imagine the ancestors of Ampulex as wasps that laid their eggs near dead insects--as some species do today. These corpse-feeding ancestors then evolved into wasps that attacked living hosts. Likewise, it's not hard to envision an Ampulex-like wasp evolving into full-blown parasitoids that inject their eggs directly into their hosts, as many species do today.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    9. Re:Evolved by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Read the article:

      Amuplex is not technically a parasite, but something known as an exoparasitoid. In other words, a free-living adult lays an egg outside a host, and then the larva crawls into the host. One could easily imagine the ancestors of Ampulex as wasps that laid their eggs near dead insects--as some species do today. These corpse-feeding ancestors then evolved into wasps that attacked living hosts. Likewise, it's not hard to envision an Ampulex-like wasp evolving into full-blown parasitoids that inject their eggs directly into their hosts, as many species do today.

      Once the wasps started attacking the roach hosts, there some selection pressure for the wasps to keep the roaches alive as long as possible. Ultimately, evolution favored the ones who stung the roaches in the brain in this manner.

    10. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      how many evolutionary failures must there have been before the first momma wasp hit those particular neurons?

      No need to assume "evolutionary failure" in not stinging the right spot. For a handwaving just-so story, just assume the head sting started as a way to kill a roach to ensure a very fresh, plump corpse for the larvae. Then, a slightly less violent sting would sometimes paralyze - but not outright kill - the host, making for even better conditions. And so, gradually, improvements in accuracy and specificity of the venom would make for better and better conditions for the larvae.

    11. Re:Evolved by digitallife · · Score: 1

      If MyLongNickName is genuinely interested in evolution, then I apologize profusely for jumping down his throat. Unfortunately, it sounded to me like another creationist pretending they understand evolution and has just found another great example by which it couldn't possibly work. I don't think I'm being jumpy to feel that way.

    12. Re:Evolved by digitallife · · Score: 1

      Normally I would be courteous in such a case too. However I have a feeling MyLongNickName is not interested in the particular workings of evolution. In a time when creationists are constantly looking for every silly and remote and ill-informed reason to bash evolution, it is not unreasonable to react dubiously.

    13. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I signed up for an account at the stardestroyer.net forums about 4 months ago. It was never processed. Seems kind of pointless to plug a site that's not processing new accounts.

    14. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why must everyone who wants to know how something evolved be an IDer? I would like to know myself how this evolved. Are you such an idiot to think that everyone who even asks a question disagrees with evolution?

    15. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MyLongNickName only asked questions. It's impossible for him to have made a statement that you could misinterpret if he only asked questions. This is merely you jumping down his throat.

    16. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are no better than the bible-thumping creationist morons when you yell at anyone who simply asks how something evolved.

    17. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you pondered this for, what, 30 seconds? Billions of wasps, evolving over millions of years, betting their lives and those of their descendents on the outcome, guided by evolution couldn't do better. Nah.

    18. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are clearly not cut out to be the ambassador of evolution. It seems like you would do best to stay in your lab with the door closed, your mouth closed, and your mind closed.

      Even the expression of outright disbelief and skepticism at aspects of evolutionary theory is no license for you to begin a self-righteous rant about "creationists pretending to understand evolution" -- anyone who accepts the scientific method as a valid framework for the discovery of truth would respond much better to a calm, clear explanation than they would to a hostile, condescending spew about how incredibly specialized your knowledge is and how difficult it is for laymen to understand.

      And anyone who does not accept the scientific method as a valid framework for the discovery of truth? They're neither likely to respond to your childish mud slinging nor your technical explanation. Do your research and publish your work. Those who care will read it. But please, don't bore us all with your tired "I'm a fucking scientist!" rant.

      I guess the bar is set pretty low for biologists these days.

    19. Re:Evolved by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Since when does somebody have to have an alternative to ask how the prevailing paradigm accounts for a phenomenon? Isn't that a reasonable first step in formulating an hypothesis?

      "Mum, how does Aristotle explain the apple falling from the tree?"

      "Do you have anything better Isaac? No? Then STFU!"

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    20. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, asshole, I'm not an expert in the field of biology or evolution. However I know I hate idiots who have never spent a second actually trying to understand something and then start preaching like they do. It's not about "skepticism at aspects of evolutionary theory", but rather THEY are the mud-slingers who wouldn't listen to reason no matter what. I'm sick and tired of listening to them preach with their ignorance and agendas about how evolution is wrong (and creationism is right). If they wanted a reasonable conversation, it wouldn't be hard to find.

      Further, it wasn't at all childish mud-slinging on my part. Certainly it had a tone of annoyance, but it was an honest question, if posed a little wrongly directed, of why people uneducated about evolution constantly believe they could possibly critique it.

    21. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats funny, because my reply was only asking questions too. Oops you made a boo-boo!

    22. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you described is not, of course what the dude was doing. He was clearly suggesting that there is no possible way this evolved and that his magic, invisible pasta monster is the only reasonable explanation. As such, his was not an honest inquiry, an honest seeking of a real world explanation for how this zombie roach wasp parasite came to be. When faced with such dishonest brokers, the only appropriate response I can think of is STFU!

    23. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You still seem to be a bit confused about intelligent design. It's not a scentific proposition, so it need not receive a response from scientists. Intelligent design is a political problem -- voters have the power to force schools to teach nonscientific ideas as though they are science. It is not the intelligent design-advocating would-be scientists who are your enemy here -- it is the voters and the system which gives them the power to dictate curriculum.

      Continually approaching intelligent design with a strategy of "proving it wrong" or "showing them they're wrong" is blindly missing the mark. If you want to repair science education in schools, you need to go after the aspects of our system which give voters the power to determine curriculum.

      I guess the bar is set pretty low for weekend-warrior political blog airheads these days.

    24. Re:Evolved by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      then I apologize profusely for jumping down his throat

      Well, so long as you didn't lay eggs in his stomach and guide him to your nest waiting for them to hatch.

    25. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, that removes all confusion.

    26. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I have a feeling

      um, cause he didn't come out and explicitly bash evolution, he asked an interesing question (which you then snidely assigned motives ).

      feh on you

    27. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw-man. I never suggested ID was scientific or that I was trying to convince scientists. However, you seem to be deluding yourself if you think proponents of ID do not think it is science. Further, where the hell did you dig up your quotes about '"proving it wrong" or "showing them they're wrong"'? I never held that position.

      You have too much pent-up aggression, stop taking it out on me.

    28. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When faced with such dishonest brokers, the only appropriate response I can think of is STFU!

      Well, another response might be to try to answer the question. Why do the motivations you _suspect_ are behind the questions make you unwilling to answer it, as stated?

    29. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you look at the other comments he made in this thread, it is clear that he was trying to bash evolution. Communication is deeper than the surface, friend.

    30. Re:Evolved by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Continually approaching intelligent design with a strategy of "proving it wrong" or "showing them they're wrong" is blindly missing the mark.

      I need to agree with the other poster, where the heck this you pull this out of?

      The problem is that ID believers are trying to prove evolution wrong, using the same crap statements as the original poster in this thread. We're not trying to prove ID wrong, we're trying to make them shut up and leave evolution alone since they don't even have the most basic knowledge of it.

    31. Re:Evolved by Rakishi · · Score: 0

      Well, another response might be to try to answer the question. Why do the motivations you _suspect_ are behind the questions make you unwilling to answer it, as stated?

      Personally? Because it's pointless, if someone wants to understand the answer all it takes it picking up a few books on evolution or biology. Nowadays, google works just as well although books may still be better. If they haven't looked for such information, then first of all it is impossible to even explain all the required knowledge in a single post since most likely they have little concept of biology at all. That's not even getting into the need to explain how science and scientific thought functions, since most likely they lack an understanding of that as well.

      Had they shown some incentive or knowledge, such as their own ideas or indicated knowledge of biology then I might be more inclined to discuss the topic with them.

    32. Re:Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I am not an IDer. Intelligent Design is not science.

      That being the case, you, along with the other people who have jumped to this conclusion about me have revealed something about yourself. You are hypersensitive about criticism, or even questioning of your beliefs. You are no better than the people who assume to world was created 6,000 years ago and want to ban any other kind of teaching.

      Though I am not an IDer, there are many things that occur in nature that make you go 'hmmmmm'. When you need to take baby steps to evolve, but you see something in nature that appears not to be reachaable through baby steps (individual steps seem to create a disadvantage to the organism). In fact, alternate scientifc theories have tried to account for this by arguing that there are periods of "hyper evolution"... periods were extreme mutation rates occured, giving the opportunity to make multiple mutations in short periods. Not sure how scientifically sound the theory is, but it does show it is not just IDers who think the theory needs some refinement, or better understanding.

      Yet, if someone questions current theory, they are shouted down.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    33. Re:Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      He was clearly suggesting that there is no possible way this evolved and that his magic, invisible pasta monster is the only reasonable explanation

      Damn. I must have had a seizure when I was typing the original post. I don't remember typing any of those keys.

      You have said more about yourself than about me, AC.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    34. Re:Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      You really think that Biologists have all the answers on evolution? You are no better that Joe Churchgoer who believes whatever his priest tells him.

      Not only do biologists not have all the answers... they don't always even agree with each other.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    35. Re:Evolved by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Which other comments would that be? At the time you posted I only had one other comment which had nothing to do with evolution?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    36. Re:Evolved by Shihar · · Score: 1

      The issue is not about poking holes in the current theory. The issue is taking a lack of evidence as being evidence of a non-theory. ID is just a "God of holes" philosophy. 500 years ago ID would have argued that physics is too mysterious to have come about naturally. Today they rightfully stay the fuck away from physics because our explanations are too good and getting too close to a unified theory. The remaining 'holes' in physics while certainly there, are small counter intuitive ones.

      Evolution his its issues. Much like physics of a few hundred years ago there are some gaping holes where things do not add up. Thankfully, most scientists do not throw their hands up and say, "Fuck it, this shit is hard. Lets just say god did it and call it a day".

      Honestly, ID wouldn't even make the news if it didn't try and shove itself into a class room. The people who advocated the big bang before it was fashionable never went to court to stuff it into a school system. They diligently took criticism of their theory, conducted experiments, and over time developed a body of evidence to show that they were correct. Over time people began to accept the big bang theory. Finally, once it was an accepted theory it was naturally integrated into school teaching. This is the way it should work. This crap where a few religious zealots try and stuff a philosophy into the science class room that has not a single piece of peer reviewed material on it is just religiously minded bull shit, pure and simple.

      Hell, ID isn't even a theory. A theory has the ability to make predictions. ID has no such power. ID is a religious philosophy and nothing more.

    37. Re:Evolved by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "He was clearly suggesting that there is no possible way this evolved and that his magic, invisible pasta monster is the only reasonable explanation."

      No, he didn't. If that's how you're going to respond to a reasonable question, then how would you expect to have any more respect than the pasta monster believers?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    38. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are hypersensitive about criticism, or even questioning of your beliefs"
      Although I agree that there is a tendency to sensitivity regarding this issue, it is not unwarranted, as IDers coninually attack it without meritless accuations, and try to confuse the issue in innumerable ways. Furthermore, it is not the same type of "belief" as such in ID would be. Evolution makes sense, ID does not (other than from an emotional perspective). I take serious issue with your judgement if you believe that due to sensitivity, "[I am] no better than the people who assume to world was created 6,000 years ago and want to ban any other kind of teaching". There is a vast difference between people who base their beliefs on evidence, and those who base them on whims.

      "Yet, if someone questions current theory, they are shouted down."
      This is not always the case. However when it seems likely they are simply trying to flamebait, then it tends to occur.

    39. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [...] then I apologize profusely for jumping down his throat

      yet, you yourself admit to your lack of tact in phrasing something as simple as a "question".

      You represent the Church of Evolution of Latter Day Scientists well. Remember their mantra - question not our creation, contrive a new one.

      You, sir, are no Socrates! A grumpy bitter discontent at best...

    40. Re:Evolved by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Wl, the first phase is obvious. It's the second phase that seems damn improbable.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's ass. No effect.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's leg. No effect.
      (a hundred more variations till the wasp injects neurotoxin into the brain)
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain. Roach dies.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, other area. Roach dies.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, other area. Roach dies.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, other area. Roach goes on a wild rampage and kills the wasp.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, other area. Roach flips and goes numb.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, other area. Roach breaks into spasms.
      (a thousand more variations till the wasp gets to the right point of the roach brain, with invariable repeatablity)
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, changing roach into a zombie. Then lays eggs and a bird eats the roach.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, changing roach into a zombie. Then rides the roach around in random direction.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, changing roach into a zombie. Then rides the roach towards the Sun.
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, changing roach into a zombie. Then rides the roach out in the open.
      (another several thousands of variations where the wasp rides the roach in random unprofitable direction)
      A wasp mutates to inject neurotoxin into roach's brain, changing roach into a zombie. Then rides the roach towards he nest. The roach dies halfway to the nest.
      (and a new wasp must evolve life-sustaining additions to the neurotoxin and injecting them in the right place of roach brain)

      All the above are pointless from evolutionary point of view, and (as we know) evolution doesn't take long strides through unprofitable behaviours until it reaches some "higher plan", a profitable sophisticated behaviour. There's no evolutionary advancement from a wasp that doesn't inject any neurotoxin and one that injects the neurotoxin and drives the roach in a circle. Only fully developed set of behaviors, from the initial paralysing to settling the roach in the nest and laying the egg is evolutionarily profitable for the species. And the combinatory explosion resulting from all the possible UNPROFITABLE behaviours between plain "kills with poison" and "drives to nest" make me sometimes really doubt plain evolution (though I discard ID as explaination. I just assume "unexplained".) It's just that the change wouldn't be evolutionary but revolutionary - the difference between one and the other behaviour is TOO big and anything inbetween doesn't make sense, so how did the jump happen?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    41. Re:Evolved by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I remember thinking the same thing. Of course, asking whether or not an observation fits with the currently accepted theory is tantamount to heresy, and anyone who wants to be considered half intelligent would do well to accept this fact.

      Oops.

      Then again, I don't want to be considered only half intelligent.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    42. Re:Evolved by EvoDevo · · Score: 3, Informative
      I hope my post will generate an intelligent discussion and not flames. Here it goes:

      As a biologist (molecular genetics), I would say that this is the side of evolution people in the field don't talk about. I don't think I've ever read any papers (doesn't mean it doesn't exist) in which a serious study has been taken to answer the question of how evolution can be a CREATIVE process. Here's what I mean:

      Microevolution (the DNA mutations and their inheritance by the progeny) occurs all the time, I think we can all agree on this. Macroevolution and speciation on the other hand, is a very hand wavy thing. In macroevolution, new structures or functions are derived from an ancestor. All the widely cited example of evolution, may it be Darwin's finches or the peppered moths are variation of existing structures. In terms of DNA mutations, this may only take a few changes in the actual DNA sequences which regulate the expression (or the turning on) of certain genes. The probability of these mutation events is already pretty low, but one can imagine this happening.

      However, the question in the original post of how single base-pair (bp) mutations can lead to an organism not having a given ability at all to having an ability to control the roaches involves invoking evolution as having a CREATIVE force. As an excercise, let's just imagine that we are trying to create a brand new smallish 100 amino acid neuro-peptide that can control the roach by evolution. If you start with some random DNA sequence and try to evolve a 300 bps (3 bps/aa). You will end up with a probability of 1/4^300 = 2.4x10^-181 chance of evolving that (ok it'll be a little higher because 1/4 of the DNA will already be the one you want). That's a pretty small probability in anyone's book. You also have to account for the fact that while you are trying create this protein, other things are getting mutated in your genome and probably killing off the larvae before they have a chance to pass down their genes. Since you have not created a fully functional gene yet, there is no selective advantage for this specific gene locus, and the half-evolved gene is just being carried along in the population at a very low frequency. This means that it is very easily lost in the population and you have to start over trying to create your gene again.

      This is just for evolving the neuro-peptide. For the gene to function properly, you NEED regulatory DNA sequences that control the protein to be expressed in the right place (ie. the stinger). There are also a lot of other things that the protein needs to be delivered to the roaches' brain (like the entire secretory pathway). But let's not go into that.

      So I hope one can see, that the probability for all these events to occur is very very low, I would say a mathematical improbablity. And this is just for ONE protein to function properly!

      Don't get me wrong, I stare a lot at DNA sequence data, and some things make a convincing case for evolution. But again, it's just microevolution. For creation of new structures and functions, and speciation, a lot more is needed. Speciation is not an observable event, and neither is the formation of new structures. Before we go and hail evolution as the new dogma of the modern man, we need to take this into consideration. And teach it like it is: if the enterprise of science is the search for "the truth" we need to be open and admit the assumptions and the caveats in our hypothesis. And that's what macro-evolution is: an hypothesis.

    43. Re:Evolved by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are, literally, in any given generation of wasps and roaches anywhere from 10^5 to 10^7 individuals. You could easily cover all of those individual variations in a single generation. The ones that were not successful would be gone in another 2 generations, tops, which would explain why we don't see all of these unsuccessful versions swarming around. Like you said, evolution wouldn't follow through on those unsuccessful variations, but that one that was successful is going to reproduce and pass that particular trait on.

    44. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many insects and arachnids paralyze or kill their prey with poison and lay eggs in, on, or near them. This is simply an interesting variation on that.
      Oh... right then. That TOTALLY EXPLAINS how evolution works, thanks for that. Um not, let's hope thats not the best defense evolution has.
    45. Re:Evolved by notnAP · · Score: 1

      Here is a very good illustration of how ID proponents arrive at their conclusive examples.
      While the story was simply a brief description of the process and far from a scientific description of the activities, the writer actually speculates how this behavior may have evolved.
      Now note the ID point of view. Not only do they jump at whatever complex quirk of nature they come across as proof of ID, they do not even bother to learn the science they question (i.e. RTFA and have their doubts answered).
      And why not? After all, that's precisely how people "study" the Bible.
      1) Find one or two verses that could in some way promote your opinion du joir (The Universe revolves around the earth, Anyone who doesn't worship like I do has no right to live in what I consider to be my promise land and must be cast out with a series of Crusades and other six-day wars, God wants you to hate fags and vote Republican)
      2) Cite those instances as complete, unquestionable proof of far more complex and grandeous theologies.

    46. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be lying if I said I understood most of your conclusions, but I agree (in part) with the dilemna you're presenting. Either way, it was a good read and I thank you for it.

    47. Re:Evolved by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I never said that I do, I don't see how you could even come up with that from my post. I simply said that explaining evolution, and in general this would require explaining all the background, is pointless in a forum post to someone who will not listen. A book or website written by someone else is a much better teacher, and if someone cared they would have read one already. For example, I don't argue about the meaning of things in the bible for example because I don't have a good enough understanding of the bible. I wouldn't expect people on a Christian site to explain every little thing to me, and likewise I won't myself explain every little thing to creationists and IDers.

      As for your statement on Biology, your point being? That is science, we build up answers over time, and the general ideas are fairly well agreed on. Physics for example has multiple theories in certain areas, and most people don't say it is all wrong and then claim god's will is doing it and there is no need for physics. Unlike creationists and IDers scientists don't simply agree with whatever the priest tells them; conflicts will exist and the point is that with time and experiments some agreement is reached. Biology is a very active field, as such there is a lot of such conflict right now and with time it will even out.

    48. Re:Evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone want to try to explain how THIS evolved? If evolution is a series of small mutations, how would an organism go from NOT having this ability to being able to control the roach in such a manner?

      Anyone want to explain how a kind, loving god would create such crazy things?

    49. Re:Evolved by AlterTick · · Score: 1
      I signed up for an account at the stardestroyer.net forums about 4 months ago. It was never processed. Seems kind of pointless to plug a site that's not processing new accounts.

      You don't need an account to read the website, which is all I'm plugging.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    50. Re:Evolved by AlterTick · · Score: 1

      Oh... right then. That TOTALLY EXPLAINS how evolution works, thanks for that. Um not, let's hope thats not the best defense evolution has.p. It's not meant to explain how evolution works. I assumed you already knew the theory. I'm just saying the evolutionary leap is not as far as it may appear.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    51. Re:Evolved by tabby · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people assume that intelligent design means a supreme being. Can anyone suggest any good books with the hypothesis of aliens meddling with earth's ecology?

      --
      I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
    52. Re:Evolved by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I'll begin with the most important part, if you wish to question evolution for whatever reason and with whatever alternative theories I expect you to:
      a) Understand biology and evolution, I don't mean be an expert but I do mean understand. I'll happily explain or concede specific points but don't expect me to lecture you on the whole theory of evolution and genetics.
      b) Already know the counter arguments to your alternate theory, and explanations for why it may be wrong. If 5 minutes and google can dismiss what you said then why are you bothering me at all?
      c) Make it clear in your post that the above two hold, this shouldn't be anything special. Either provide a link or explain your ideas in such a way that the points from b) do not apply.
      d) Show a desire to think logically and accept that you may be wrong, otherwise why are you bothering us?

      If these don't hold for you then don't complain when I tell you to STFU or simply ignore you (the later takes less time and I'm only replying here to back up someone else). Questions of "how did X evolve" are usually quite stupid, since most of the time it's either on google (if the organism in question has been the subject of major debates in the past) or any answer you get can be reached using simple logic (and understanding of biology). If you still feel like asking at least indicate in your post that you have used some of your brain on the problem already.

      That being the case, you, along with the other people who have jumped to this conclusion about me have revealed something about yourself. You are hypersensitive about criticism, or even questioning of your beliefs. You are no better than the people who assume to world was created 6,000 years ago and want to ban any other kind of teaching.

      Have I now? I never said I don't accept criticism, I accept intelligent criticism quite well sometimes too much for my own good. I'm the type of person who will explain to 9/11 conspiracy nuts why they're being morons using evidence instead of simply telling them they're morons. That said; I understand why other people would not and why I myself have simply stopped caring. You can only hear and explain the exact same thing so many times before saying "screw it" and realizing there is no point. If I think there is a point or potential use for a discussion then I will happily join in, but I'm not going to waste my time on explaining all of biology to some moron who will ignore it all anyway (and yes that is 99% of IDers and those who "question evolution", most of the others would be much better of reading a book). A book would explain things better, and furthermore I'm not getting paid to explain all this crap to you (nor am I qualified to really).

      When you need to take baby steps to evolve, but you see something in nature that appears not to be reachaable through baby steps (individual steps seem to create a disadvantage to the organism).

      That most likely means you're either not looking at it right or are not understanding what types of baby steps are involved and how they are beneficial. What we see is a stone arch, and wonder how such a thing could have ever been made by ancient people. Unless you realize that they used scaffolding when putting it together you may think it was impossible. I've heard many argument made by people before, and almost all were quickly dismissed by a google search (see above).

      In fact, alternate scientifc theories have tried to account for this by arguing that there are periods of "hyper evolution"... periods were extreme mutation rates occured, giving the opportunity to make multiple mutations in short periods.

      Everything in science needs refinement; your posts were neither refinement nor an indication of a specific area in question. If you wish to know how things could evolve, then pick up a book on evolution and learn to think logically.

      Not sure how scientifically sound the theory is, but it does show it is not just IDers who think the theory needs some refinement, or better understanding.

      IDers think the theory is wrong, not that it needs some refinement. There is a difference.

    53. Re:Evolved by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Not only do biologists not have all the answers... they don't always even agree with each other.
      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      Science doesn't need all the answers, and it isn't a problem to change your mind. When a theory outlives its usefulness, it's replaced with a better one. Science is based on understanding; unlike dogma, it doesn't crumble if the mask of infallibility slips.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    54. Re:Evolved by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      It's soooo obvious....The insects (Wasps in this case) simply copied the behavior of space aliens who landed on this planet some hundreds of thousands - or millions - of years ago. Anybody else would have done the same.......

    55. Re:Evolved by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Well, 10^5 or 10^7 is very little considering that a (any) mutation happens once in 1000 specimens or so.
      Therefore two unrelated mutations in one individual in about 1,000,000, three in 10^9 etc... Here we're getting a combination of of about 6-7 totally unrelated and completely unprofitable when taken alone mutations. So the chance of a single random wasp mutating into a zombie driver wasp would be like 10^20 or so. Add to that the element of dumb luck (zombie driver wasp isn't killed by a bird or doesn't freeze on a cold day before giving offspring), and you suddenly see how amazingly rare this is.
      Building the first cell-like organism basing on DNA that was randomly assembled in the ancient "life soup" was even less likely, but back then you had whole planet covered with oceans filled with this soup and a thousands of random DNA strings assembling inside every single drop of water from these oceans. Wasps certainly outnumber humans on Earth, but still the population size, even when multiplied by several millions of years doesn't really make it close to the probability figure. Unless of course my "spherical cow" approximations are way off.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  31. Lunch by dg41 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny, I wasn't planning on keeping my lunch down anyways. (too much info)

  32. Awsome! by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now, I need to steal some genes from this little wasp, inject them into prostitutes. Then, take over the minds of a few select politicians. Next thing you know, I've got one in the whitehouse...and..uh...

    Wait a second...

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Awsome! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then, take over the minds of a few select politicians.

            The problem with your plan is that you are forgetting that your host must be in posession of a brain: it won't work on politicians...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Awsome! by failure-man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In postmodern Washington prostitute whores you!

    3. Re:Awsome! by MooUK · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, as you've realised, someone is several years ahead of you and has been having a lot of fun laughing at the world all this time...

      And unfortunately, it wasn't me.

  33. Correct, you think not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if they can prove it didn't originally have this, then God did what, changed his mind? Realized it wasn't perfect in the first place? But how can that be? Are you willing to change your belief on that basis?

  34. slashdot & breakfast do not mix by melvin+xavier · · Score: 1

    I just sat down at my computer with a yoghurt, go to slashdot, and this is the first thing I see. Thanks, slashdot, for making my breakfast just that much more inedible.

  35. Did you ever feel like a zombie roach? by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Funny

    When filling out your tax returns?

  36. Human brain can be "modifed" by an infected cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a parasite that changes a rat's behaviour so that the rat can be hunted by a cat more easily. Some scientist report that the parasite also affects humans, for example, citing the story Parasite infection from cat shit linked to schizophrenia, T. gondii cyst infection appeared to decrease novelty seeking behaviors and reduce psycho-motor intelligence in men.

  37. TEXT BODY by tj500 · · Score: 5, Informative

    THE LOOM

    February 02, 2006 The Wisdom of Parasites

    Posted by Carl Zimmer

    I collect tales of parasites the way some people collect Star Trek plates. And having filled an entire book with them, I thought I had pretty much collected the whole set. But until now I had somehow missed the gruesome glory that is a wasp named Ampulex compressa.

    As an adult, Ampulex compressa seems like your normal wasp, buzzing about and mating. But things get weird when it's time for a female to lay an egg. She finds a cockroach to make her egg's host, and proceeds to deliver two precise stings. The first she delivers to the roach's mid-section, causing its front legs buckle. The brief paralysis caused by the first sting gives the wasp the luxury of time to deliver a more precise sting to the head.

    The wasp slips her stinger through the roach's exoskeleton and directly into its brain. She apparently use ssensors along the sides of the stinger to guide it through the brain, a bit like a surgeon snaking his way to an appendix with a laparoscope. She continues to probe the roach's brain until she reaches one particular spot that appears to control the escape reflex. She injects a second venom that influences these neurons in such a way that the escape reflex disappears.

    From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach's antennae and leads it--in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex--like a dog on a leash.

    The zombie roach crawls where its master leads, which turns out to be the wasp's burrow. The roach creeps obediently into the burrow and sits there quietly, while the wasp plugs up the burrow with pebbles. Now the wasp turns to the roach once more and lays an egg on its underside. The roach does not resist. The egg hatches, and the larva chews a hole in the side of the roach. In it goes.

    The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days. It is then ready to weave itself a cocoon--which it makes within the roach as well. After four more weeks, the wasp grows to an adult. It breaks out of its cocoon, and out of the roach as well. Seeing a full-grown wasp crawl out of a roach suddenly makes those Alien movies look pretty derivative.

    I find this wasp fascinating for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it represents an evolutionary transition. Over and over again, free-living organisms have become parasites, adapting to hosts with exquisite precision. If you consider a full-blown parasite, it can be hard to conceive of how it could have evolved from anything else. Ampulex offers some clues, because it exists in between the free-living and parasitic worlds.

    Amuplex is not technically a parasite, but something known as an exoparasitoid. In other words, a free-living adult lays an egg outside a host, and then the larva crawls into the host. One could easily imagine the ancestors of Ampulex as wasps that laid their eggs near dead insects--as some species do today. These corpse-feeding ancestors then evolved into wasps that attacked living hosts. Likewise, it's not hard to envision an Ampulex-like wasp evolving into full-blown parasitoids that inject their eggs directly into their hosts, as many species do today.

    And then there's the sting. Ampulex does not want to kill cockroaches. It doesn't even want to paralyze them the way spiders and snakes do, since it is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third. The Israeli researchers found that they could also drop oxygen consumption in cockroaches by injecting paralyzing drugs or by removing the neurons that the wasps disable with the

  38. Other parasites with similar capabilities by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a group of crabs called Sacculinae, which do the same to the crabs they are parasiting on.

    The sacculina is a barnacle which grows on (or rather below) other crabs, squeezing and growing its so called rhizocephalae into the body of the host crab and trying to reach the brain of the crab. After the brain is reached, the host crab turns into a zombie, reacting on each command from the sacculina, even searching for a mate for the sacculina.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:Other parasites with similar capabilities by The+Allmighty+Fluffy · · Score: 0

      So you're telling me the headcrabs have headcrabs too?

      --
      Don't Mind Me, I'm Just Nuts
  39. I usually do the same thing by slug_bait · · Score: 1

    The only problem is, sometimes the neurotoxin stops working and the zombie roaches wander off with my eggs. Usually into the mouth of the neighbor's cat, cause even though the neurotoxin has worn off slightly, the roach remains a bit slow and easily confused.
    Also my husband sometimes forgets why the zombie roach is there and eats it. This may be funny in retrospect, but at the time it is very disheartening. What's a wasp to do?

    1. Re:I usually do the same thing by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      Where's a moderation point when you need one?

  40. It's quite simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Anyone want to try to explain how THIS evolved? If evolution is a series of small mutations, how would an organism go from NOT having this ability to being able to control the roach in such a manner?"

    Evolution involves random genetic mutations which build up over time. The individual bits of DNA (G,A,T,C) are jumbled and switched around. Thus it is, that this wasp's predecessor, Ampulex gompresst, through two such mutations, becomes Ampulex compressa. Any questions?

    1. Re:It's quite simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words: just because a random mutation (which proved to be beneficial and is successfully passed-along to further generations) seems "cool" or "surprising" to us doesn't make it less likely to occur. Especially when you have organisms whose life cycle is very short and whose environment stays relatively static.

      I heard over NPR that americans aren't very much concerned about bird flue. We're simply hoping that a particular mutation does NOT occur (human to human transmission). Oh, I guess that's for a different discussion. Wait, is it all that different?

    2. Re:It's quite simple... by Bodysurf · · Score: 1

      Evolution involves random genetic mutations which build up over time.

      Not true.

      Those mutations would necessarily be psuedo-random, not random.

    3. Re:It's quite simple... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      psuedo-random

            I agree with pseudo-random. Certain DNA base-pair sequences are more likely to be misread at the proofreading stage (and therefore not corrected) than others. Truly random mutations are taken care of by the proofreading of DNA, and the many repair enzymes.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  41. Parallels... by Transcendent · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...isn't that what lobbyists do?

    1. Re:Parallels... by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what wives do!

  42. more about fungi and ants by bodrell · · Score: 5, Informative
    I also immediately thought of the ant fungus when I read the article summary. Here's some more information about the order Entomophthorales, which exclusively infect insects. I found a pdf that gives a little more background information on them.

    I should point out that the fungus in question might actually be a species of Cordyceps rather than Entomophthorales. There's a cool photo of a beetle that was killed by a parasitic fungus at bugguide.net.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    1. Re:more about fungi and ants by the+Dragonweaver · · Score: 1

      The ant so affected seems to be Megaloponera Foetens , the "Stink Ant" of the Cameroon. From the article I linked, it is "one of the very few to produce a cry audible to the human ear."

      An ant that cries audibly and is enslaved by fungus. And some people say science fiction is implausible.

      --
      Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
    2. Re:more about fungi and ants by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      A tech nerd AND a bug nerd?

      Do you realize how far in the back of the line for sex you are?!?

      (I kid! Seriously, bugs freak me out.)

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  43. Mode parent down by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm all for comedy on Slashdot, but these evolution "debates" make us all look stupid.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Mode parent down by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I guess you got modded offtopic because poeple did not understand that you meant that creating a debate is exactly what those ID-idiots want, and that there is no debate, because only one of them two sides is a theory and only one side is provable. PERIOD.

      So even *talking* about ID is pretty damn stupid. It's not worth thinking of it for more more second for everyone with half a brain. (Of course this only makes sense to poeple with at least half a brain. But how a wise man said: "Never argue with an idiot. First he'll drag you down to his level, and then he beats you with experience")

      I repeated the core problem of all this often enough: The more poeple we are, the less intelligent every single being has to be. And the industry plus the "not caring, but complaining" mentality resulting from this are the motor that accelerates it even more via a feedbaack loop.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Mode parent down by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would mod him offtopic just because I'm just sick and tired of people, both sides, screaming and yelling about ID everytime there is a story about nature on slashdot.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    3. Re:Mode parent down by hotarugari · · Score: 1
      Debating about anything that you don't have all the information for is stupid. It's like arguing about life on other planets or in other dimensions.
      Juan Oró, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. Later experiments by him and others were actually able to produce the other nucleic acid bases. So now we see there's another area of chemical evolution experiments going on to get at replication. Also, it was found that sugars could be produced. Formaldehyde is one of these monomers produced in the Miller experiments and other experiments. The formaldehyde could polymerize to form a ribose. And indeed, in various kinds of experiments, ribonucleotides are more readily synthesized than the dioxyribonucleotides. Therefore, it started to appear that maybe, if that's the case, the ribonucleotides, that RNA may have appeared early, that the early world was an RNA world.

      But this leads to a paradox because today nucleic acids are only synthesized with the help of proteins and the proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. So we have sort of a chicken and egg problem. It's improbable that proteins and nucleic acids arose spontaneously, at the same time and at the same place. It seems implausible to have one without the other.

    4. Re:Mode parent down by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      What I enjoy is people that take experiments that dont prove anything from 50 years ago to show that because they couldnt produce a certain result in a very specific set of circumstances means that science is wrong in 100s of other cirumstances.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    5. Re:Mode parent down by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      What I enjoy is people that take experiments that dont prove anything from 50 years ago to show that because they couldnt produce a certain result in a very specific set of circumstances means that science is wrong in 100s of other cirumstances.

      It's still better than the "it's just a theory, not a law!" crowd. Listening to those fucktards trying to explain science to me could well be the most torturous thing I've endured in my life.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    6. Re:Mode parent down by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      You've just summed up precisely what it is that I hate with moden fundamentalist religious movements, and at the same time made me realize that we're all just pandering to these idiots.

      Here's hoping one side or the other isn't crying out for beheadings anytime soon. We still have some tolerance in the West.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  44. not the roach or wasp as you know them by nietsch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the roach genus is quite prolific and well distributed with only 2 or 3 considered pests. The same goes for wasps, and only a few specieses of the genus are considered pests. A whole lot more wasp species are grown as biological crop protection: the locate the caterpillar, lay an egg in it and watch while the new wasp eats its way out of the still living caterpillar. Nothing new here, except that this particular species has found a way to use the roaches power to move the body to a premade burrow instead of digging the burrow on the spot.
    Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers. BTW the submitter was flogging his own book it seems?

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by Myuu · · Score: 1

      I thought at least the headline was pretty funny and interesting. Curious about the article now.

      --

      forget it.
    2. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by nwbvt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Nothing new here, except that this particular species has found a way to use the roaches power to move the body to a premade burrow instead of digging the burrow on the spot."

      Yeah, hence why the headline read "Wasp Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches" instead of simply "Wasp Larvae Feed on Roaches". This particular mechanism is the interesting aspect of this article.

      "Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers."

      We may not have a large percentage of entymologists here, but it does have a large percentage of science nerds who enjoy reading about novel discoveries in the world of science (of course until the site recovers from being /.ed, its hard to determine whether or not this is indeed a novel discovery or just a reprint of something that was discovered some time ago).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by muyuubyou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What nwbvt said. Obviously the headline is appropriate, and to me it is newsworthy if only because of the perceived cruelty in the attack.

      It's also undeniably amazing that they get to control roaches like that. For me that is the most interesting part, not the goal they have but the means they're able to perform.

    4. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, hence why the headline read "Wasp Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches" instead of simply "Wasp Larvae Feed on Roaches". This particular mechanism is the interesting aspect of this article."

      No, wasp larvae feed on zombie roaches, wasp parents smoke roaches, that's where they got the "lay eggs in zombie roach" idea from.

      "Hey Louise, not that roach the other one... LOUISE, STAY AWAY FROM THE RED END... Louise? Oh damn."

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    5. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by grogdamighty · · Score: 1

      This is not at all a new phenomenom - I was saw clips of this in neurobiology classes some time ago. I don't really see why it's making Slashdot.

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    6. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Same here.. too bad the server seems to be in a sortof zombie state as well.. its there, but not really..

      The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

    7. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      The original paper, "Direct Injection of Venom by a Predatory Wasp into Cockroach Brain"(pdf), was published 3 years ago, so I guess it's not news to entymologists. I'm not an entymologist, but I am a nerd, and it's news to me.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    8. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by efflux · · Score: 1
      Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers.



      Pshah! It has the word *zombie* in it! You don't know the slashdot I do.

      Though I'm not being serious, you know, I actual am. Tongue in cheek, I suppose, is the phrase.

      --
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
    9. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (of course until the site recovers from being /.ed, its hard to determine whether or not this is indeed a novel discovery or just a reprint of something that was discovered some time ago).

      This is /., ffs. Of course it's a dupe.

    10. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by notnAP · · Score: 2, Funny
      Unless Slashdot has a very high percentage of entymologists, I don't think it is that newsworthy for slashdot readers. BTW the submitter was flogging his own book it seems?


          Note how the submitter carefully injected a story into the central nervous system of the blog site.

          Using carefully crafted words, the readers were left with their ability to evaluate the value of the link paralyzed, but still completely capable of actually moving on the the site.

          And once in the submitter's lair, the pitch is made and the book is pushed.


          And although this tactic may be considered by some as proof of an intelligently designed marketing scheme, you can see how it may just as easily have evolved from more crude but similar methods. Previous book-pushers would simply welcome with delight the random web visitor. Then they would notice how "lucky" their friends were when popular blogs noted works and puched more "random visitors" to their book sites. And then finally to the inevitable proactive, nearly parasitic methods employed here.

    11. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by v1 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly a new discovery. I think I watched this on public television (Nova or Nature I believe?) several years ago. IIRC, the wasp stings the roach to basically drug it, then cuts its antennae down quite a bit, (drinking the fluid that's inside the antenna) and then leads it back to the burrow by the cut antennas. Once in the burrow, it then stings it again, permanently paralyzing it. Each roach gets a few eggs laid on it, and the wasp will do this with several roaches.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    12. Re:not the roach or wasp as you know them by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed reading about a real-life zombie!

  45. More zombie madness by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Leucochloridium paradoxum is a worm which infects snails and turns them into zombies as well. The zombie snail crawls up vegitation where it can be seen by birds and the parasite causes the snails eye stalks to extend and pulsate to atract birds.

    The birds then eat the eye stalks and become infected themselves. The worms lay eggs in the bird's digestive system and they are then spread by the birds excrement which the snails eat thus repeating the cycle of life for the parasite.

    Rather creepy stuff.

    http://people.smu.edu/eheise/Leucochloridium_parad oxum.htm

    burnin

    1. Re:More zombie madness by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, the pulsating eyes thing isn't unique to snails when it comes to animal mind control.

    2. Re:More zombie madness by lifeisgreat · · Score: 0

      Although it doesn't have specific goals in mind, there is at least one infectious agent that alters a person's mind - rabies. The symptom that most surprises me is the fear of water that rabies infectees have - even the sight of it can invoke spasms.

      I wonder what other viruses/bateria there are that can alter behaviour.

    3. Re:More zombie madness by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Most Wrong. Reproductive Cycle. Ever.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  46. More like a Ruphie - there is no magic brain meld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a very good explanation based on 60+ years of research into this wasp.

    The venom makes the roach become lethargic, whereby the wasp leads the roach by the antenna, much like a 'ruphie' type effect. It is not mind control.

    http://www.bgu.ac.il/life/Faculty/Libersat/pdf/JNB .2003b.pdf

  47. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by WaR.KiN · · Score: 1

    We would do well to follow its lead, and gain the wisdom of parasites There are already human parasites. They are called paparazzi.

  48. Hardly News by rspress · · Score: 1

    Brittany Spears, Ashlee Simpson, Mariah Carey and J-Lo pretty much prove this exists in the dominate species as well.

  49. In related news by eyepeepackets · · Score: 0

    People have been using this same technique with Microsoft OS based computers for years now. Research suggests there is no direct linkage between techniques although they are almost identical in practice. Scientists not yet sure which came first: The roach or the rube.

    Happy weekend!

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  50. I KNOW I KNOW OOO I KNOW by technoextreme · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Now how do we get one into Bush/Gates/[insert your favorite villain here]?
    Pray to god the wasp evolves yet again and feeds on this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7491302/
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  51. Best parasitic wasp story yet... by Archtech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is the most sophisticated parasitic routine I have ever heard of, AFAICR. But I was reminded of David Attenborough's BBC TV series "Life in the Undergrowth", which I recently watched - it's available on DVD in the UK, and according to Amazon will be released in the USA at the beginning of May. That contains a few similar examples, including a small wasp whose grub parasitizes living spiders - the biter bit. Strongly recommended, like everything by "Whispering Dave".

    Until he explained it, I did not know that wasps were among the oldest of insects, and that both ants and bees were descended from primitive wasps. That set me thinking about cockroaches, which also go back to the dawn of land life. I wondered whether they were, unlike most other bugs, immune to attack by wasps. I guess this article answers that question pretty decisively.

    Ever wonder how you would cope with wasps the size of a human being? I know it should be physically impossible, but it's too good a scary idea to give up. "The Furies", by Keith Roberts, is a very good SF novel on that theme, which - unlike many such books - hasn't dated since the 1960s. To quote a review on amazon.co.uk, the Furies are "wasps with a 2 meter wingspan and mandibles like bolt-cutters". And, of course, they hunt in packs...

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  52. As Kent Brockman would say... by Megane · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Voodoo Wasp overlords.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  53. reminds me of a Sapolsky article... by Hooya · · Score: 1

    that reminded me of an article by Sapolsky in the Scientific American of March 2003 called "bugs in the brain". a pdf version is here. which then led me to read "a primates memoire". haven't looked at other animals/organisms the same since.

  54. Won't someone please think of the roaches? by Psykechan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm, snips of their antennae and uses the stubs to lead them around? That sounds familiar...

    Remote controlled roaches

    Although I think that roaches will eventually rise up and rebel using their roach controlled robots.

    1. Re:Won't someone please think of the roaches? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "They are not very nice insects," Holzer confesses. "They are a little bit smelly, and there's something about the way they move their antennae. But they look nicer when you put a little circuit on their backs and remove their wings."
       
      I wonder if the roaches would consider us "very nice."

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  55. Original paper here by philgross · · Score: 2, Informative

    The original paper can be found here. It actually dates from 2003. Despite my weak biology background, I found it very readable.

    They also describe an interesting middle phase of the wasp attack which was not mentioned in the summary: after the brain injection, the roach furiously "grooms" itself for 30 minutes. They also note that the zombie behavior takes about 30 mins to take hold. Thus there's a possibility that the intense "itch" in the cockroach keeps it in the same place until its escape reflex has been fried.

  56. Not very PC by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Funny
    WASP Larvae Feed on Zombie Roaches

    ENOUGH with the ethnic slurs already!

  57. Dahmer did similar experiments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and people called him "Crazy".

  58. If only... by Dogun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now, if only I could do that to women, I might actually stand a chance of reproducing.

    1. Re:If only... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      You don't need that ability. Just some chloroform.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  59. Get a field study guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are going to the rainforest or even considering it, it is a good idea to pick up a good guide os you know what you are looking at. Me and my wife spent our honeymoon in the rainforests of 3 countries and I swear the only animal common in all 3 was human.

  60. Heard about this kinda stuff before... by kadathseeker · · Score: 1

    from one of my favorite authors, Peter Watts. He writes hard as hell sf, which includes behavioral modification in this manner. His first two novels are schedluled to be reprinted soon, but until then he has made them available for free in basic tect or pdf form, all downloadable, on his website http://rifters.com/ red the right hand column on the newscrawl section too, it's very much like /. in topics.

    --
    The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
  61. hmm... by aeoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    And then there's the sting. Ampulex does not want to kill cockroaches. It doesn't even want to paralyze them the way spiders and snakes do, since it is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third.

    This reminds me of a social dynamic between human employees and employers:

    1. Employer doesn't want to kill the employee: check.
    2. Employer doesn't want to paralize the employee: check.
    3. Employer delicately takes away employee's self-motivation: check.

    I bet the stuff about oxygen and metabolism is true as well.

  62. BRAIIIINNNNSS by Viriatus · · Score: 0

    Brrraaaaiiiinnnssss Brrraaaiiinnnsss bbbrrraaaaiiinnnsss ARRRRgggggghhh!!!!!!!!!!

  63. Christ A Zombie? by cannuck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Finally "we" understand it all. Christ was never crucified - instead he was turned into a zombie - and didn't need to be resurrected.

    Equal satirical treatment for Christains and Muslims alike ;)

  64. Zimmers books... by Racknar · · Score: 1

    are very informative and readable. I just finished "At the Waters Edge" and I must say that as a layman it really expanded my knowledge about evolution. The whole "no transitional fossils" line from creationists is just so much crap and it doesn't take much exposure to paleontology to see that. I read that the book that Zimmer wrote as a companion to the PBS series "Evolution" is going to be re-released with some additions and updated information. If you are looking for a good starter book on evolution I recommend it.

  65. That's funny by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Karl Rove can do the same thing with a few choice images in the background of a political ad...

  66. evolved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no evolution, don't you know?

    Intelligent design guides all such outcomes.

    So it is written.....

  67. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

    By definition, the paprazzi want to photograph celebs. Any ressemblence between a celeb and a human is purely coincidental.

  68. There's a parasite that does this to slugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The slugs eat the parasite eggs that are on the surfaces of leaves. The eggs hatch inside the slug, and the parasite takes over the slug, making it climb to the tops of leaves. The parasite even extends part of itself into the slug's antennae, making them swell and pulse (it's gross as shit).

    The movement is designed to attract birds, which will eat the slug (and parasite).

    The parasite matures inside the digestive tract of the bird, and lays its eggs in there.

    The bird poops, and the poop has the parasite eggs in it. If the poop lands on anything a slug might eat....

  69. I have these at my house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My father already knew this and has shown me where the wasps put the living-dead insect and its larva.
    I just didn't know about this sophisticated method of victim kidnapping.

    The ones we have here are entirely green though -- no brownish leg. Come to think, it might be a relative, not Ampulex Compressa. But it is otherwise identical, metallic green and all (huh, "green hornet"?)

    We have walls of apparent brick here; they can build a kind of tomb between the bricks (with mud and saliva?).

    Kinda like this:
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ---- cement (concrete)
    ]Z[__]Z[__]Z[__]Z[__] ---- bricks (with cement in-between)
    ZZZZZ((((((((()ZZZZZZ ---- insect-built tube on cement
    [__]Z[__]Z[__]Z[__]
    Only problem is those tubes are the size of full-grown woman's middle finger -- not enough to fit a cockroach inside... at least, the ones we have here.

    NB: This lameness filter sucks.
  70. And in other news... by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

    ... Sony Corporation denies it has been using the knowledge to develop a "cerebral root kit" in an attempt to "attract" new customers to its music division..

  71. For The Swarm!!!! by theurge14 · · Score: 1

    Off to play some StarCraft...

    1. Re:For The Swarm!!!! by Jongpil+Yun · · Score: 1

      Infested Kerrigan: [in shock and disarray] An illusion? Are you afraid to face me, Templar?

      Tassadar: So long as you continue to be so predictable, O Queen, I need not face you at all. You are your own worst enemy.

      Protoss own.

  72. Cicada Killer Wasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of us that have actually been outside anywhere in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa or Asia, this shouldn't be news:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada_killer_wasp

    These wasps do the same thing as the species you mention here, but to Cicadas rather than roaches. Growing up in Texas we saw these all the time -- very impressive animals. They're rumored to have inspired the alien from "Alien".

    1. Re:Cicada Killer Wasp by Preacher+X · · Score: 1
      This is actually not the same, as noted in the original brief. The wasp does not carry off the paralyzed insect, it instead "drives" or "guides" it to the burrow. As referenced on page 2 of the brief:
      The wasp grabs one of the cockroach's antennae and walks to a suitable oviposition location. The cockroach follows the wasp in a docile manner like a dog on a leash (Williams 1942; Fouad et al. 1994). A few days later, the cockroach serves as an immobilized and fresh food source for the wasp's offspring.
      This is strikingly different behavior than the cicada killers, which simply paralyze and then haul off thier, effectively frozen, prey.
      --
      "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
    2. Re:Cicada Killer Wasp by Preacher+X · · Score: 1

      My apologies, the opriginal brief is located at http://www.bgu.ac.il/life/Faculty/Libersat/pdf/JCP .2003.pdf

      --
      "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
  73. JWZ rippage? by Down8 · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone was reading JWZ@LJ...

    http://jwz.livejournal.com/

    -bZj

    --
    .sig
    1. Re:JWZ rippage? by cocoamix · · Score: 1

      A lot of JWZ's stuff probably came from Fark first anyway.
      The only person time no one is "ripped off" is when the author him-herself is the submitter.

  74. Mind controll Drug? by Jeng · · Score: 1

    [quote]She injects a second venom that influences these neurons in such a way that the escape reflex disappears. From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach's antennae and leads it--in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex--like a dog on a leash.[/quote]

    I wonder how many governments are funding research on this now?

    [quote]So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third. The Israeli researchers found that they could also drop oxygen consumption in cockroaches by injecting paralyzing drugs or by removing the neurons that the wasps disable with their sting. But they can manage only a crude imitation; the manipulated cockroaches quickly dehydrated and were dead within six days.[/quote]

    Maybe NASA should study them also?

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  75. Prove that it's provable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove it or gtfo

    1. Re:Prove that it's provable by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      GP made a good point, but missed the detail that it isn't that it's provable, it's that it's falsifible. That's what science does. How can you disprove intelligent design when no matter what happens you can always say "God^H^H^HThe Intelligent Designer wanted it that way"?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  76. IF1 by chigun · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new wasp larvae overlords.

    --
    swanker than you
  77. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    There are already human parasites.

          They are also called "children".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  78. A personal experience by smoker2 · · Score: 1
    I thought I was having an idea the other day...

    turns out it was just the eggs hatching !

  79. Toxoplasmosis by Bombula · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite whose life cycle seems to revolve mostly around cats, but it has the ability to affect other mammals as well, including otters and humans, according to the current wikipedia entry. I remembered reading a while back that this parasite alters human behavior by creating tiny cysts in brain tissue. Well, anyway, here's the behavior-altering section from wikipedia:

    "Toxoplasma is one of a number of parasites which require alteration of host's behaviour for their life cycle[1]. The changes observed are likely due to the presence of cysts in the brain, which produce or induce production of a neurotransmitter, possibly dopamine[2], therefore acting similarly to dopamine reuptake inhibitor type antidepressants. A slightly increased car accident rate, and reaction time slowed by a few percent have been observed (specifically, the infected lose concentration more quickly than the controls in the second and third minute)[3]. "If our data are true then about a million people a year die just because they are infected with toxoplasma," the researcher Jaroslav Flegr told The Guardian[4]. The data shows that the risk decreases with time after infection, however all older drivers are generally able to compensate for longer reaction time[5]. Ruth Gilbert, medical coordinator of the European Multicentre Study on Congenital Toxoplasmosis, told BBC News Online these findings could be due to chance, or due to social and cultural factors associated with toxoplasma infection[6]. Studies argue about the influence of the parasite on personality. There are claims of toxoplasma causing antisocial attitude in men and promiscuity[7] (or even signs of higher intelligence[8]) in women, and greater susceptibility to schizophrenia and manic depression[9] in all infected persons. A review of research focused on the schizophrenia connection confirms an association but does not confirm a causal relationship [10]."

    Maybe women like cats because their toxoplasmosis infections make them smarter! Or maybe it's just because women can identify with creatures that are obsessed with their appearance, are impossible to understand, predict, or order around, and look down their nose in scorn at all of the huffing and panting and howling and slobbering we direct at them...

    --
    A-Bomb
  80. Street value? by MrNougat · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the street value of the wasp toxin would be. I bet that shit would fuck you up.

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
  81. Oblig by ScaryFroMan · · Score: 1

    Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!

    plus a little more at the end

    --
    In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
  82. The stink ant of the Cameroon by absurdist · · Score: 1

    http://www.mjt.org/exhibits/stinkant.html

    real?

    unreal?

    Charles Fort would have been proud.

  83. Did anyone remember? by POKETNRJSH · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new wasp overlords.

  84. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by alxkit · · Score: 1

    dont forget the x-wives

  85. Easily de-optimized by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Evolution works both ways. Just de-optimize them. Run a breeding program where the wasps that have a high failure rate of getting the roaches back to the nest are allowed to live while you kill off the wasps that are efficient.

  86. I will buy Microsoft. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I will buy Microsoft. I will buy Microsoft. I will buy Microsoft....

  87. monkey scut by halo112358 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hello, this has been floating around for at least two days - why is it worthy of front page news here and now?

    1. Re:monkey scut by halo112358 · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if you're skimming stories from boingboing at least have the decency to bury them in the categories and not post them on the front page. A: You're overlapping stories with the competition B: you're late. So tell me, why am I going to come to slashdot to look at stories I've seen elsewhere two days ago?

  88. This happens to mankind too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a species that infects the mind of man, enslaving them for reproductive purposes.

    It's called woman.

  89. suburbanites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, this might explain the behavior of people in suburbia. They seem to behave like zombies and sort of stiffly walk around doing what each other is already doing. So I'm thinking there must be some parasite that is turning them into zombies and controlling them, we just have to figure out what it is.

  90. Definite Example of Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is just an early form of marriage.

  91. I always thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...that WASP Larvae feed on custodial accounts!

  92. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our WASP overlords.

  93. Dermatobia Hominis by mikael · · Score: 1

    Here's some more ....

    Dermatobia hominis, or Torsalo, or Human Botfly is a type of moth whose larvae live inside human flesh. The female doesn't lay her eggs directly on a human host by herself. Instead, she "captures" a female mosquito, places some eggs on the mosquito and then releases her. As soon as the mosquito reaches a mammal and starts feeding, the heat from the host activates the eggs which hatch and then burrow into the wound that the mosquito just created. Since the larvae needs to breath, it will maintain a small airhole leading to the surface of the skin.

    Removal of the larvae is performed in several ways: (1) Just let it grow until it falls out, (2) surgical removal, or (3) suffocate it out - By using camphor or superglue, it is possible to block the airhole, which will drive the larvae to the surface. Then with the appropriate application of pressure, the larvae can be forced out of the host (usually shooting 6-10 feet in the process).

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Dermatobia Hominis by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Mod (-1, Skin-Crawling Inducing)

  94. American Plutocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This natural evolution reminds me of the American Plutocracy, where politicos and meda figures combine to turn once-thinking people into zombies so the resulting offspring serve the colony.

    (Turn off your TV. Don't tell me about how the scifi channel is equivalent to books, drone.)

  95. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I got lots of good ideas for the nanobot lab in my basement. You'll be hearing about some of my creations real soon now. (You might want to wear a helmet for the next, say, 250 years.)

  96. Sounds like human behavior at the singles bar.... by d474 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wasp (guy) injects neurotoxins (buys cocktails) into cockroach's brain (for a hot chick) turning it (her) into a zombie (an easy hot chick) and then leads it (her) back to it's nest (bachelor pad), lays eggs inside it (screws her without a rubber), and waits for eggs to hatch (shotgun wedding!).

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  97. Re:Slashdotted. Here is article text. by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 1

    There's a rather good episode of Dr. Who (with Tom Baker) about The Wirran, in which aliens lay their eggs in a human(+/oid) host. He mentions the appropriate genus of wasp. Alien was ripped from this IMHO. As was The Matrix - a disgraceful rip of a different Dr. Who series, again starring Tom Baker. But, that's another thread.

    --
    shin phantomflanflinger
  98. You think thats fun by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    Take a look at this skinworm infecting people in Mafikeng. FTFA:

    "People come to clinics complaining that their body is itching. Within three days small sores develop. A yellow spot then develops from each sore as it gets ripe. Once the sore is expressed a worm comes out of it."

    Ripe sores. Now thats entertainment.

  99. These Wasps are also known as "Ravers" by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Here's to hopeing i evolve soon. It would make getting laid so much easier. "Excuse me... is that your car on fire" Then she turns around... I inject my toxin into her brain... take her home...

    Zombie baby... Sweet sweet zombie sexy time.

  100. we could use some of those wasps by the0ther · · Score: 1

    here in nyc

  101. Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but can the roach run linux?

  102. Lancet fluke on ants... by antdude · · Score: 1

    There was a previous discussion about this one on my message board.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  103. technically... by Poltras · · Score: 1

    ... for now.

  104. Cue the Ayn Rand cultists... by CptPicard · · Score: 1

    ...jumping up and telling us all that this behaviour can be seen in human beings too, in social democrats and other parasitic creatures who paralyze the brains of the worthy through the toxic sting of public education and/or quaint concepts of "morality" so that they can be led like a dog in a leash away from their fundamental right of participation in a free market!

    --
    I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  105. while humans evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as parasites on cows

  106. but what about the roach children? by bobamu · · Score: 1

    won't someone think of the roach children?!!?

  107. Re:Sounds like human behavior at the singles bar.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny, I've found another example!

    Wasp (girl) injects neurotoxins (possibility of sex) into cockroach's brain (single heterosexual male) turning it (him) into a zombie (a single heterosexual male who thinks he's going to get some) and then leads it (him) back to it's nest (parents house), lays eggs inside it (marriage), and waits for eggs to hatch (slow and painful death!).

  108. Very Human Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between this and the way humans grow animals which are later slaughtered for food. Are humans natural parasites?

  109. Just like US politics? by AHuxley · · Score: 1
    A great movie plot, no expensive sets needed:

    The story leaves nothing to embellish: The wasp, Americanus Conservatoris, has evolved to inject a toxin into a specific part of a Republicans
    brain, turning it into a zombie. The wasp then leads the Republican into the wasp's nest, lays Prophecy inside it, and waits for its young to
    hatch, who will then go on to do the same to more Republicans.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  110. Reasons for suffering? by jonskerr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Likewise, the grandparent's argument implies there IS a reason for suffering. Western religions are populated by such a bunch of crybaby four year olds.

    Suffering just is. There's always something. The buddha noticed it two hundred years BC and noticed it's inescapable. But in the east, they don't assume some single creature is doing it deliberately; after all, it's not like it really matters.

    He also noticed WE make the suffering worse but sitting there bitching about how wrong and unfair it all is, and going "Why? Why? Why?".

    Thirdly he noticed we can make it quite a bit better.

    Last he said the way to make it better is to quit wishing for things to be different. Once we give up these desires, suffering vanishes.

    Westerners should think about these ideas more. At least it would be quieter.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
    1. Re:Reasons for suffering? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Crybabies? Quieter? Who exactly are you trying to criticize? Medical researchers? Sick people? Charities that try to raise money for medical research or otherwise help the less fortunate?

      My mom happens to be a devout buddhist and is part of a local buddhist group that focuses on environmentalism, charity, etc. Wanting to alleviate suffering has nothing to do with believing that some malevolent force is behind it. It may be convenient to believe that the suffering of others is part of some great plan that "god" has for us, but that kind of thinking only leads to apathy and impedes progress.

      Please quit it with your orientalist bullshit. Don't drag philosophies that you haven't actually studied into your arguments.

  111. Infomercials are like this by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just similar to how people recruit an audience for an infomercial?

    tone

    --
    tone
  112. easy detection for this by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1
    Detection procedures:

    before wasp ( . )
    after wasp ( o )

    ... soon to be on slashdot "Super wasp zombifies human brain"

    same detection

    before wasp ( . )
    after wasp ( O )

    I could almost swear the (leader of the) east is ruled by wasps; isn't there a similar movie about it ?

    oh my, Here come these "I bow to our (alien) wasp masters" jokes again ... ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:easy detection for this by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      I guess I was too stoned detecting if I was sting by a wasp or not; the leader of the west seems to be...

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  113. Did he give those beetles free will? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And did they commit the original sin?

  114. Kafka's Republican Metamorphosis... by SimHacker · · Score: 1

    I had a dream that I was a cockroach, and that wasp Ann Coulter stuck me with her stinger, zombified my brain, led me by pulling my antenna into her nest at Fox News, and laid her Neocon eggs on me. Soon a fresh baby College Republican hatched out, burrowed into my body, and devoured me from the inside. Ann Coulter's designs may be intelligent, but she's one cruel god.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  115. Re:Sounds like human behavior at the singles bar.. by MooUK · · Score: 1

    Except the wasp, FTFA, doesn't lay the eggs inside. It lays an egg outside, and the lava eats its way into the roach.

    Hmmm... The guy's seed is "layed" only somewhat inside, and works its way further in?

    Almost works...

  116. Zombies, zombies everywhere... by baKanale · · Score: 1

    First zombie dogs, now zombie cockroaches! Now that my pets AND my pests have been zombified, I await for my own impending zombie future.

    My college voodoology teacher would be proud

  117. Sacculina by citizenr · · Score: 0

    Sacculina

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    1. Re:Sacculina by Sique · · Score: 1

      Yes. A single Sacculina. And several Sacculinae.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  118. Easy to Explain by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    When life is viewed as a test for an afterlife, disease, paracitism and all kinds of worldly horrors can be explained away just fine. Life itself is not precious for a God who has power over life and death.

    Not that such beliefs need logical explanations. Just bend over when the priest asks you to.

  119. Big Deal! by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    Dicrocoelium dendriticum (a type of liver fluke) has been known to do this for a long time. One of its life stages is ingested by an ant and at some point causes the ant to climb up onto the tips of grasses and grab on (with its mandibles) to the tip of the grass blade. Then when certain grazing animals (such as sheep) come by they inadvertently consume the ant and the grazer can then become infected. There are lots of other freak-stories in any parasitology book -- check one out at your local library!

  120. pretty common actually by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Fugus attacking insects is pretty common actually. Cordyceps spp do this. We get some fine [herbal chinese] meds from a few such as C. senensis. Another that is really interesting is C. subsessilis which is also known as Tolypocladium inflatum from which we get cyclosporin.

    This is a whole new field actually - fungal control of insects. There are a few patents out and undoubtably this will be a nice growth area. Perhaps we can even get rid of the nasty pesticides we have used in the past under the mis-idea that chemistry will pave the way to a brave new world devoid of human pathogens. Our hospitals have been busy breeding a whole raft of really nasty critters by following this mantra.

  121. food poisoning? by dwater · · Score: 1

    > The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days.

    The wasp then dies, painfully, of food poisoning.

    --
    Max.
  122. Nature is sleazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...filthy, slimey, utterly self-serving

    die bitch...next!

  123. This is the exact same mechanism... by Perdition · · Score: 1

    This is the exact same mechanism used in art schools to keep attendance up:

    "Wow, you're a great artist, kid."
    "How would you know?"
    "I'm an art teacher."
    "Wow, really? And you think I'm good?"
    "Yes, good enough to be an art teacher one day."

    Then they lead them into the art school... it's shockingly ugly.

    --
    Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
  124. I for one, welcome our Wasp/Zombie overlords. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our Wasp/Zombie overlords.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  125. Finally by TheOldSchooler · · Score: 1

    A practical way for slashdoters to reproduce.

  126. WHOOOOOOSH!!! by absurdist · · Score: 1

    I suggest you actually look at the rest of the site and see the blurring of the line between the real and unreal. That was Charles Fort's whole point... never trust the adherents to any priesthood, no matter how polished their presentation. The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an exploration and physical manifestation of that concept.

  127. Re:More proof.. of choice of imperfection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the sin that causes imperfection. The original Design was perfect, but God allowed freedom of choice, and humankind chose imperfection. Hence the nature evolves to reflect that imperfection. In this case, we chose to ignore the Creator.

    Come to think of it, the true fitness function in natural evolution is destruction and death. Survival of the fittest is nothing more than a futile attempt to fight against destruction. In the end, everything gets destroyed.

    I remember watching a nature program of animals trying their best to survive in a drought. At the peak, only the strongly adapted survives, but eventually, everything dies. The fitness function of the drought was death. The adaptation was nothing more than short-lived attempt to prolong the survival. Instead of a period of drought, think of thousands of years of survival of generations of species. They will evolve the best way they can to pass on their genes in order to fight against total annihilation.

    Natural Evolution is not a creative process. People say sun is the energy source that created life. That's not true. Think of a steam engine. You increase thermal energy, and the engine runs. Does the thermal energy make the engine? No, it only makes it run. Evolution is nothing more than a process of life adapting to the destructive fitness function. It doesn't create a fitness function. Energy only gives the necessary fuel for the adaptation. Not creation. Life forms can either just give up and die, or fight by evolving in futility. But the end result is death either way. Pretty meaningless.

    Are you trying your best to survive in a rat-race that goes downhill, or do you hold on to the truth, and let God guide you through your life?

  128. suffering is a virtue by catmistake · · Score: 1

    That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided.

    I beg to differ with you... at least in the Judeo-Christian mythology, suffering is a quality of the good. If you didn't suffer, you would likely be evil, (though, in the much rarer cases, blessed).

    1. Re:suffering is a virtue by Chrononium · · Score: 1

      That's actually what I am implying by this statement. Suffering can always be given to God because it is a force for good. But to those who say that it is always evil and should therefore always be minimized (or eliminated), I gave an example showing how the suffering of many Americans during WW2 was used for good.

  129. TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas.

    What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?

    A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?

    If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.

    What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason.

    Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?

    Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened.

    I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."

    1. Re:TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?

      The rules and laws of the Universe.

      The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?

      Why do you keep insisting on the idea that an intelligence must be behind things? If you have even the slightest understanding of maths or physics you will know that complexity can arise out of order.

      If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.

      Nonsense. You are putting forward the more complex case - that some intelligence is behind things. Prove it. Your ignorance of how things happen is not proof.

      Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?

      Oh, so you don't think that people haven't been asking what is different about their setups? How can you possible ask what is scientific when you haven't the slightest understanding of what actually goes on in science. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma?

      You are the one insisting you already have the answer - 'intelligence did it'. You are the one expressing your personal dogma.

      I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."

      Einstein did not believe in a God.

    2. Re:TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?

      The rules and laws of the Universe.

      ---The circular argument again, how or from where did these laws come to be, and if there are these laws that govern how things happen, then is that not leaning more toward indication of intelligent design, than roll the dice random luck? AND notice the question mark here, because you seem to think that I am making statements, when in fact I am asking questions.---

      The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?

      Why do you keep insisting on the idea that an intelligence must be behind things? If you have even the slightest understanding of maths or physics you will know that complexity can arise out of order.

      ---Explain how this "complexity" happens spontaneously, without a preceding cause, because I know for sure that that completely violates scientific principles and logic, to imply that things spontaneously happen without a cause. And secondly I am not insisting anything, I am simply ASKING what is the evidence that it is not intelligent design? You know using the true scientific principle, questioning instead of pretending to know. Notice the question mark again.---

      If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.

      Nonsense. You are putting forward the more complex case - that some intelligence is behind things. Prove it. Your ignorance of how things happen is not proof.

      ---Again the scientific dogma and circular argument, if you make a supposed statement of fact, such as "no intelligent design" or "intelligent design", to be scientific, each one or the other has to be supported by empirical evidence. Where is the evidence for "no intelligent design"? Where is the evidence for "intelligent design"? Where you are missing the point is that I am not convinced of either, because no one has shown me any conclusive evidence either way.

      Where do you see that I take a position on either, I was just pointing at potential evidence and asking what does this support? The position that I take is that there has been no conclusive evidence shown to me either way, but where I see something that might, I ask the question. That is supposed to be the scientific way. If there is no evidence that something exists, that is NOT evidence that it doesn't exist. It just means that WE DON'T KNOW, something that I have never heard a scientist say about any of this. So all together now, on the subject of how the Universe came to be, WE DON'T KNOW!---

      Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?

      Oh, so you don't think that people haven't been asking what is different about their setups? How can you possible ask what is scientific when you haven't the slightest understanding of what actually goes on in science. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      ---Well I do know about the scientist self interest, versus the scientific position of wanting to know. The so called scientists that are getting billions of funding dollars for the Tokamak, did not want the government to know that there might be an alternative, that might be viable for a lot

    3. Re:TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Light propagates through absolutely empty space, and although this is different from what we know about sound, and relationships between laws is not needed, so no problem any more. Now along comes Zero Point Energy, and it now seems once again that "empty space" is absolutely full of seething energy. So is this the medium through which light travels? Remembering originally that was the dilemma, all the empirical data available indicated that vibration needed a media through which to propagate. And maybe even the type of media should be consistent with the type of vibration? So do we have to resurrect the ether again?---

      You have put together some half-understood principles here to try and make something that sounds coherent. Space is very complex, but there is no aether.

      So is it about finding out the truth, is it about self interest and glory, or is it about being published?

      It is about mixtures of these, depending on the individual.

      They start with a theory that might fit the current data, then they look for more evidence (empirical data) that might further support the theory. If there is any evidence that they find that contradicts the theory, that has to be either ignored or explained away. They will not change or abandon the theory to fit all the known facts.

      This is total ranting nonsense. Good scientists don't ignore evidence that doesn't fit. There is no point. Science is a competitive process. Fellow scientists will try and reproduce your work, and they will find that your work is wrong. This happens all the time. Poor work is weeded out.

      What about our recent stem cell buddy? Was this not publish me please?

      Yes, and his work was analysed by fellow scientists and found to be wrong. That is how science works.

      The so called scientists that are getting billions of funding dollars for the Tokamak, did not want the government to know that there might be an alternative, that might be viable for a lot less funding. So destroy someone else's career, that will work.

      This is just crazy. The US government has been trying to get Cold Fusion to work for a very long time, as a way to get energy. The reason they are funding Hot Fusion is because Cold Fusion simply doesn't work! You need to get your facts straight.

      ---Where have I said anywhere that "intelligence did it", all I have ever said is that there is no conclusive evidence that it didn't, so until there is, these so called scientists should not be going around saying "it was not intelligently created" like they are an authority on the subject.

      No, you are wrong. Scientists ARENT going around saying that it was NOT intelligently created. What they are saying about so much of the universe is that there is no need for an intelligence to explain so much of it.

      The whole theme of my issue has been that science is now rotten with dogmas, and sacred cows, and is just as unscientific as religion.

      Utter nonsense. Science is rich and vigorous with debate about alternatives. There may be individuals with dogmas, but if those dogmas don't pass the test of time they are thrown away. This is the exact opposite of religion.

      You seem to be missing a key point. There are two alternatives, according to you: The complex Universe arose by itself, or the complex Universe arose via an intelligence.

      You are saying both alternatives should be considered.

      What you don't seem to understand is that it is possible that the complexity of the universe can arise from simple rules, and intelligence is more complicated than simple rules.

      Intelligence is complex - VERY complex. It is rational to go for the less complex situation: Simple universe arises alone without the need for a complex designer.

    4. Re:TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      "Cold Fusion simply doesn't work!"

      See the statement above, this is making the point that I have been trying to get across about scientists all along, in comparing them to 1500s religion. This is dogmatic and closed minded pure and simple. You don't know that cold fusion doesn't work for sure, any more that you know that they will ever get hot fusion to break-even, it just might require duplication of some more attributes of the Sun than extreme heat and pressure, for sustained reaction, and that these attributes may not be duplicate-able. The operative word in this sentence is "might". There just is not any supportable evidence either way, but maybe you should do some research into what has been happening with cold fusion in the last 10 years.

      So perhaps you should use the three state logic, yes, no, and maybe, because the CORRECT ANSWER to cold fusion is "maybe". And not an authoritative dogmatic NO it doesn't work.

      The correct answer to the ant and the fungus question was, "maybe, I don't know for sure yet".

      And the point I was making about so called "empty space", was because when they did not need the concept that light might operate in a similar manner to sound any more, which was that there had to be a medium through which it travels. So then they went to the "we know for sure that space is empty" position, and started spouting this in all the publications. I took this crap in school.

      In reality "ether" was just a word that they concocted in an earlier era, because they thought that there might be something occupying what seemed to be "empty" space, and this was supposed to be the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation, but they at that time were not sure what this might be. So in that respect the word "ether" was meant to represent "non-empty" space.

      But Oh Gee, now we have the question of Zero Point Energy, and Dark Matter, so "empty space" may not be so empty after all? And then as a logical deduction, electromagnetic radiation might actually travel through this stuff, and just maybe it is even needed in order for light to travel at all? We might have a use for the word "ether" again, just change its meaning a bit? These are just questions, not any dogmatic statements of fact.

      But did I ever hear we made a mistake about "empty space", when we were cramming all that dogmatic crap down your throat at school? When I would ask a simple question like: How do you know space is empty? We are the authority, and how dare you question our scientific authority. Then there was the religious crowd cramming the same kind of crap down my throat "God just went poof and there was the whole of creation" but then where did all those dinosaur bones come from? How dare you question our dogmatic authority! So I am still in the same kind of scenario right now, How do you know that cold fusion doesn't work?

      "You are saying both alternatives should be considered"
      This statement is correct, that is what I am trying to say. And I think what you are saying is that they have picked the easy alternative, not because there is substantial proof either way, but just because it is easier to work with. I am not in total agreement with this approach, because some place, some where, someone will be spouting this position like it is a certainty.

      I am not sure where I encountered the following concept, but I believe it was in Greek writing, maybe Plotinus. Every phenomenon is preceded by a cause, in a backward sequence of cause and effect. This either ends up at a "first cause" which is a cause that has no other, or the backward cause and effect is endless. But they admitted that they did not know which. The "first cause" scenario closely resembles the intelligent creation theory. And the "endless cause and effect" scenario, more closely resembles the random creation theory. Like the million monkeys on the typewriters would eventually type Hamlet theory. But this is only a logical framework within which to work and find empirical evidence either way, and in the meantime, the correct answer to either question is, I don't know for sure yet.

    5. Re:TEXT VERSION Re:More proof.. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      This is dogmatic and closed minded pure and simple. You don't know that cold fusion doesn't work for sure, any more that you know that they will ever get hot fusion to break-even, it just might require duplication of some more attributes of the Sun than extreme heat and pressure, for sustained reaction, and that these attributes may not be duplicate-able. The operative word in this sentence is "might". There just is not any supportable evidence either way, but maybe you should do some research into what has been happening with cold fusion in the last 10 years.

      So perhaps you should use the three state logic, yes, no, and maybe, because the CORRECT ANSWER to cold fusion is "maybe". And not an authoritative dogmatic NO it doesn't work.


      Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no. You are confusing 'cold fusion doesn't work' with 'cold fusion will never work'.

      This is the beauty of science - it is based on what is effective. Cold fusion may have worked in one case; perhaps on one day, for the 'discoverers'. But, that is irrelevant. Science is based on replicatable findings.

      How dare you question our dogmatic authority! So I am still in the same kind of scenario right now, How do you know that cold fusion doesn't work?

      You are setting up yourself in opposition to positions that no-one is taking. There is no dogma about cold fusion, simply the evidence that over a decade of attempts to reliably replicate the reports of energy+neutron production have failed, so far. That is what I mean by it does not work. Not dogma - evidence.

      And I think what you are saying is that they have picked the easy alternative, not because there is substantial proof either way, but just because it is easier to work with.

      I think you are misunderstanding how science (and rational logic, in my view) works. You should always pick the easy alternative first - and it being easier to work with is an excellent reason for doing this! It is the Occam's razor approach. There are an infinite number of complicated hypothetical explanations for anything - the influence of higher intelligence, the work of fairies or Mutant Star Goats (with apologies to Douglas Adams). Given all these possible explanations, going for the simpler explanation has proved a useful way to understand things.

      The "first cause" scenario closely resembles the intelligent creation theory.

      No, it doesn't. Because there is no reason why a first cause should be intelligent. The insistence that such a first cause needs to be intelligent seems to me come from a combination of an emotional insecurity which requires a God/Creator, and the mistaken belief that complex results need complex causes.

      And the "endless cause and effect" scenario, more closely resembles the random creation theory. Like the million monkeys on the typewriters would eventually type Hamlet theory. But this is only a logical framework within which to work and find empirical evidence either way, and in the meantime, the correct answer to either question is, I don't know for sure yet.

      Actually, there are far more options than this. There is the possibility of no cause needed, such as universes being either circular and closed in spacetime (Stephen Hawking's past ideas), or being generated from loops in time, so there is no linear cause and effect needed (Andre Linde's idea). There is even the extreme idea that our intelligent observation creates the universe 'backwards in time' (as once suggested by John Wheeler).

      The idea that there is a first-cause intelligence seems to me to be both naive and too unimaginative. There are far more useful and simpler (mathematically, if not philophically) answers which should be explored first.

  130. Re:yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did.

    (signed) The Secrete Metamodder.