34 thoughts on “Gross-out time: toad with a worm in its eye”

  2. Reminds me of my time in Bolivia when my wife and I came across a small lizard, and on another occasion, a small rodent, both of which were heavily infested, to the point of bursting, with botfly larvae. It was horrific to observe.

    Far better to live in a universe where such livelihoods are the distasteful outcome of blind processes, than purposeful creation.

    1. I think it must be blind in that eye – no obvious iris or lens. What I want to know is what type of parasite is it (a nematode worm ?); does it usually infest the eye or did it take a wrong turning; is it related to Onchocerca volvulus that causes Wolbachia to give people ‘River blindness’?

    1. There is a purpose, and a very good and benevolent one, but of course we are lower level entities who cannot possibly grasp it.

      However, higher level entities look at worm doing its thing and come close to tears of joy at the beauty and goodness of what they are witnessing.

    2. Survival; the propagation of life.

      Tough that it’s a case of “live by the sword; die by the sword”; that “what you pick up on the swing you lose on the roundabout”.

      Reminds me of a somewhat different and, in my view, quite credible perspective of T.H. Huxley:

      … the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

      Though I would argue that that “combating” is itself part of the “cosmic process”.

  5. The relationship of the toad and the parasitic worm also looks irreducibly complex, as the worm seems intricately designed to exploit the toad. I can’t see how any of the components of this system could have evolved in a step-wise fashion – how could a parasitic worm function in the absence of something to exploit?

    Are we to actually believe that the worm’s specialized torture organs had precursors with different functions? Bah!

    Only an intelligent and malevolent creator could produce such a masterpiece. I now wonder why Behe didn’t choose parasites instead of that boring old bacterial flagellum to illustrate his case for intelligent design.

    1. The bacterial flagellum theory has been disproven now anyway – there is a living precursor to the flagellum which does the job just fine with much fewer of the components.

      I really doubt the relationship between these 2 species is that complex. Even if it is, there are several ways it could develop.

      1. I know, this was my pathetic attempt at sarcasm.

        My point is that the ID folks could probably find examples of the coveted “irreducible complexity” in the nasty creatures of the world, but of course they tend to selectively choose examples from non-threatening or pleasant (to us) organisms.

  6. I really have no problem with the idea that the nematode gets some advantage from this – that is it gets to reproduce (assuming as I said above that it is not stuck in the wrong place to meet a mate). Nature really does not care. I do not understand why people find that shocking. (Or maybe I am a heartless b*stard!) As Matthw, Edward, Adam & Norman say, it shows how ridiculous the idea of a benign god is.

  7. I see that you’re on BBC Radio 4 today Matthew [16:30 hrs GMT, 11:30 hrs EST]: The Infinite Monkey Cage

    “What’s The North Ever Done For Us?”
    The Infinite Monkeys, Robin Ince and Brian Cox, return for a new series of irreverent science chatter with a host of special guests. In the first of the new series, they’re on Brian Cox’s home territory for a recording at the University of Manchester. They’re joined by impressionist Jon Culshaw, physicist Jeff Forshaw and biologist Matthew Cobb to look at just a few of the amazing scientific achievements that Manchester has given the world, from Rutherford splitting the atom through to last year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. And if you listen closely, a few other well known voices may also appear to have snuck onto the panel…who knew that even Alan Carr has an opinion on the Higgs Boson.

    I’ll be listening.

    1. I see that you’re on BBC Radio 4 today Matthew [16:30 hrs GMT, 11:30 hrs EST]: The Infinite Monkey Cage

      An excellent programme, generally very entertaining in a sciency sort of way. Usually available on BBC iPlayer after a day or so. Robin Ince also does great stand-up – go see him if you get the chance.

      1. If we could just get Jesus to spit in the toads eye!!! Only the power of Jeezus can heal this toad!!!!-

  9. Only a loving Creator that understands all the variables including the age of this toad, the meaning of biological death and the importance of these worms can provide meaning to this scene. To us it looks a cold and cruel irony but it may be that if this toad lived much longer it would develop viral diseases that would kill many more young toads in a much crueler fashion. Our problem as humans is that we cannot see the big picture. We make a big mistake when we try to read the ming of GOD.

    1. So the mind of God designs a system that produces a toad that will develop lethal viral diseases, with said viruses also being the product of the mind of God.

      So as a patch, he engineers parasites that often slowly and painfully eliminate toads infected with the viruses?

      Why not have a better patch that instantly eliminates the toad, or does it in a non-painful way?

      Oh, and while we are at it, maybe we could design the system so that it does not produce infectious agents in the first place!

      If a living system can ONLY be designed with disease, parasites, and misery, why bring a living system into existence at all???

      Maybe a theologian will be along shortly to explain why God was logically and morally obligated to produce a living system with bot flies, malaria, and children dying of the shits.

      1. Residing on the planet Mongo. And it’s nice to finally know the name – that St. Augustine neglected to provide – for the City of God: Mingo …. 🙂

  12. Curiously enough, when I looked at the page directly below the toad video was another one with Britney Spears.

    Considering the article’s title (“Gross-out time…”) this struck me as a good example of Jerry’s wry sense of humour.

    Then I realized that the second video was a commercial for Pepsi.

  13. Reminds me of a statement by Darwin that really for me highlighted or summarized the issue of the “problem of evil” and more or less put a stake through the heart of God – Jehovah at least:

    What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature!

    Interesting also that Dawkins tellingly published a collection of essays using that same phrase.

  17. I hate to express a negative aesthetic opinion on an organism that actually has a pretty cool and incredibly interesting life cycle, but that video is fucking revolting.

Comments are closed.