No - not a crossover between two file genres, but something in real life.





It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view):



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13860891

Yes, I saw a BBC programme that featured the parasitic wasp, which was far more graphic and horrifying. Once it's finished devouring alive its host from the inside, it burrows out to begin its life - nature is both wonderful and cruel, isn't it!?

That reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOQ0VU24xw

A fungus that does a very similar thing

Doesn't this go to prove that evolution is infinitely more flexible and remarkable than anything the god botherers can claim for their preferred deities?

No. Nature doesn’t care. That’s the important bit to remember.

FFS why did I read that striaght after eating my lunch..... get me a bucket someone

No

The god botherers would almost certainly suggest that such a complicated and bizarre series of behaviours happening purely by a sequence of chance events is so improbable that it is, if anything, evidence of the existence of God and his influence in the natural world. That's what the theory of Intelligent Design is after all. The neat sleight of hand of that theory indulges in is that anything that can be used as evidence of Evolution can also be used as evidence of Intelligent Design unless you can show each intermediate stage in the evolutionary process. Which, obviously, is generally quite tricky.

Jon

Luckily the question is moot. There is no way to move from empirical observation of the world as it is to a valid conclusion of any kind relating to questions of religion. Whether one is trying to prove that there must be a God, or that there cannot be one, the conclusion is metaphysical speculation and no facts can possibly justify it.

All that can be achieved is that scientifically minded can demonstrate themselves to be technically incompetent, and the religiously inclined can exhibit the weakness of their faith.