Exploding Frogs = Intelligent Design?

Does the President happen to be in Hamburg?

Curses. You have stumbled upon our fiendish plot to rid the world of toads. We shall send the Enforcers around to re-educate you.

[signed]

The Evil *th**st Conspiracy

I may have hurt myself laughing at the Oregon explosion. The stupidity of humankind never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by k.h.ranitzsch on April 26, 2005 02:43 AM (e) (s)

First, congatulations on your nice weblog, which I read regularly.

I live in Hamburg and the story is true (though it has been blown up in the transmission through the media). It has been reported in the local press.

If you can read German, here are three stories from the "Hamburger Abendblatt", which is a solid paper and not prone to sensationalism:

9.April
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/09/419493.html
It is a localized outbreak in a single pond in the suburb of Hamburg-Altona. It is not people blowing up frogs with firecrackers or crows picking them to death. The sick frogs have been observed "exploding" by watchers from an environmental groups. They do not actually explode with a big bang. Rather, they blow their body up to large size (normally, a natural reaction when threatened to look more imposing to attackers), but then, the stomach comes out and the animals die.

12.April
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/12/420435.html
The epidemic seem to be over. Healthy-looking toads have been observed at the pond

16.April:
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/16/422357.html
Reason for the frog deaths still unclear - they are being examined by the "Hygieneinstitut" health laboratory. No bacterial infection or environmental pollution that could cause it has been detected.

21.April
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/21/424147.html
Reason for the frog deaths still unclear. The laboratory is investigating for viral infections.

One suspicion is that the agent causing this has been carried in by horses from the nearby racetrack. Apparently, similar phenomena are known from South America.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[duplicate comments, fued by Nick]

Sorry for the double posting. The response when I posted the first time looked like an error message.

Note that the second message refers to an extra article reporting that the epidemic is over.

Please, next time, post warning tags to alert for exceedingly humorous links ahead. I hurt my sides about the Oregon whale, and the Taiwanese 'Thar she blows!' specimen is still giving me snorts of laughter.

I predict that it requires the intelligent agent kiss the frog before it can explode.

So, I predict that at least we know a few things about the intelligent agent that causes frogs to explode.

It has lips, an inordinate fondness frogs, and explosives.

I predict the intelligent agent is an ID lawyer.

I blame Anne Coulter.

GACK! I can't believe I'm seeing this on Panda's Thumb, of all places. Repeat after me:

Toads != frogs.
Toads != frogs.
Toads != frogs.
...

According to the "Predigested Evolutionary Hyperthesis" the frogs were encoded to explode. Right on time, I might add. Uncontested proof of PEH.

How do you like them tadpoles?

> Toads != frogs.

Yep: The Hamburger Abendblatt is clear on this point; they use "Erdkroete" (oe = o umlaut), which is the common toad, Bufo bufo. Frog would be Frosch.

That blowed up real good.....too funny.

Toads != frogs. Toads != frogs. Toads != frogs.

The Hamburger Abendblatt is clear on this point

Toads != frogs.

Ambushing Ants = Intelligent Design

Nature 434, 973 (21 April 2005) | 10.1038/434973a
Insect behaviour: Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey

Alain Dejean, Pascal Jean Solano, Julien Ayroles, Bruno Corbara and Jérôme Orivel1

Abstract:
To meet their need for nitrogen in the restricted foraging environment provided by their host plants, some arboreal ants deploy group ambush tactics in order to capture flying and jumping prey that might otherwise escape. Here we show that the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus uses hair from the host plant's stem, which it cuts and binds together with a purpose-grown (emphasis added) fungal mycelium, to build a spongy 'galleried' platform for trapping much larger insects. Ants beneath the platform reach through the holes and immobilize the prey, which is then stretched, transported and carved up by a swarm of nestmates. To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants.

See graphic here:
http://www.charliewagner.net/ants.jpg

Um, so, Charlie: Do you propose that someone is teaching the ants how to do this?

A refugee from a flea circus, an evil refugee from a flea circus, teaching the ants to ensnare larger critters? Do you think this intelligent agent is from North Korea, Al Quaeda, or the Republican National Committee, perhaps?

Who, do you think, is training these ants?

A few days ago a Russian TV channel ran a brief news piece (in that marqee running at the bottom of the screen) saying that thousands toads (not frogs) exploded all over England.

Something about this reminds me of some scenes from the "Tremors" movie series. Yuck. And also Ewwww.

Henry

Who, do you think, is training these ants?

— Ed Darrel

Um, so, Charlie: Do you propose that someone is teaching the ants how to do this?

— Ed Darrell

"I just don't see how it can be explained without intelligent input. Certainly there's no evolutionary explanation that I've ever heard."

There we have it folks.

Interesting drawing of the ant-built grasshopper trap. It looks to me like an example of something built for one purpose and co-opted for another use.

The ants build a framework that surrounds the stem. This would allow them safe access to other parts of the tree since they would be hidden from predators.

Ants build nests all the time....not much of a stretch to extend it out to cover the twigs they walk on.

As other insects walk along this covering, they provoke a defensive response from the ants, who attack the insect en masse.

Once they have killed the interloper....they might as well cut him up and take him back to the larder.

So...a protective covering for the ants becomes a trap for other insects....evolutionary processes can explain this much better than design.

That information, in my humble opinion, was intelligently generated

— Charlie Wagner

There we have it folks.

— enough

I think the ants are causing the toads to explode with their psychic powers, a phenomenon documented, e.g., in David Cronenberg's "Scanners".

Such psychic activities are well-known to consume high levels of nitrogen (hence the documented "sweet" smell of urine excreted by telekinetics and clairvoyants).

Somewhere in my files I have several papers which describe a similar set of events in the foothills of the Xia-Jing range in northwest China where a profoundly psychic Stetter's Gray fox caused over 3,000 domestic chickens to explode in an 8 week period.

I know somewhere there is extensive 35 mm footage of a colony of psychic humans living underneath a dilapidated section of the New York City subway system. I have been waiting for scientists to revisit that observation, although I've heard rumors the colony was moved in order to construct a Starbucks on the site.

The development of behavioral routines in arthropod species matches up with their phylogenies. It isn't just body plans or biochemistries that evolve in sequences. Two classic series are the ways in which wasps bury their prey and the gradual elaboration of spider webs. Russian entomologists did a lot of work on the former topic. Any good book on spiders will lay out the evolution of spider webs.

Charlie's ant story (complete with Ripley's Believe it or Not! style cartoon, no less) took me by surprise. I didn't realize Charlie was an ID proponent since this is such a clear example of the power of UNINTELLIGENT design. The ants, which individually have nothing that could remotely be called intelligence, are able to, collectively and through the execution of a handful of simple "commands," construct a complex trap. Well, not too unlike a mousetrap, I suppose. Yet clearly there is not guiding "intelligence" at work in this construction--just the simple blind obedience of basic laws acting through the random and the necessary. In other words, if blind agents acting in accordance with simple rules can construct an impressive mechanism, is it not obvious that analogous blind processes could have (and did) construct the trap-builder? I have never seen a finer example of shooting oneself in the foot.

As counterproductive as Charlie's story might be to his point of view, I am grateful that he brought it to my attention. I was not previously aware of this remarkable adaptation. It certainly inspires awe and wonder. But as Douglas Adams said, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I see no sign of Intelligent Design in Exploding Toads. I see typical Niedersächsisch humor.

I just don't see how it can be explained without intelligent input.

The sperm whale exploded in Taiwan, not Singapore.

And this is really quite bizarre. Although it may really be some infection that seems to weaken the skin of the belly, such that when the toads puff themselves up as a natural response to threats, the skin is somehow unable to hold their guts in. But then again, I'm just making wild guesses here.

But then again, I'm just making wild guesses here.

— Hai~Ren

I had always assumed that ants behaved ultra-altruistically because most of them were sterile. Since the workers don't reproduce, there is no selective pressure on them to save their own lives, just the queen's life. Colony insects will risk their lives to protect the queen (and perhaps the fertile males as well) because they hold the code to their species.
What's so hard about that, Chuck?

Since the workers don't reproduce, there is no selective pressure on them to save their own lives, just the queen's life.

— Harq al-Ada

According to the "Predigested Evolutionary Hyperthesis" the frogs were encoded to explode. Right on time, I might add. Uncontested proof of PEH.

As a chemist they look the same to me. Mostly water and some sludge.

I'm a biologist, but I say the same thing about ID creationists, other creationists, and Charlie Wagner.

Mr. Wagner.

Please Google: "stigmergy". You will see that blueprints for social insect construction is not "hard wired" in the brain in any meaningful sense.

A "theory" that can explain everything, explains nothing.

Greg:

A "theory" that can explain everything is more appropriately called religion.

I guess that's why we keep putting those scare quotes around "theory."

Greg (an Evilutionist) said, "Yet clearly there is not guiding "intelligence" at work in this construction --- just the simple blind obedience of basic laws acting through the random and the necessary." What? Did you hear that?

He just used the word, "random" - when talking about evolution!

Ha! Don't you see what this means? Human life can't be random! No way that could ever happen... at least through any processes that I'm aware of.

Therefore, Creationism is true! Praise the Lord! humans were Intelligently Designed.

Furthermore (just to clarify), I am not a random bunch of billiard balls.

Also, my existance is absolutely not just a coincident result from a so-called "big bang."

Finally, I am not related to "goo."

Putting the "ant" back in "quantum."

Funny bit, Jeebus. I hesitated on the word "random," actually, because I'm not convinced there's any such thing as true "randomness," just causation we can't detect. If LaPlace's demon were real, I bet it could see that everything, even the so-called stochastic activities of sub-atomic particles, is in fact determined somehow. But seeing through this glass darkly, a great deal looks random to me. Perhaps I would have been better off using "regularity" and "variability."

Also, my existance is absolutely not just a coincident result from a so-called "big bang."

— jeebus

Coming soon to a lake near you?

Exploding toads have recently been observed in Denmark as well (Link in Danish: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=250361). No new info as to what causes the phenomenon, though.

jeebus can have his feeble Eureka moment.
In his blind ambition to defend his dogma he has declared that his life and life in general is exempt from randomness. He sees intelligent design everywhere while he raises his status as a human being to something above and beyond the universe. Isn't that a little like him believeing that he is God? I think so. I'll bet he thinks God will give him next week's winning Powerball numbers too. His arrogance is amazing.
I take great comfort in the fact that inexorably, every molecule in my body came from the Earth both organic and inorganic via random occurrences and the spontaneous chemical reactions of atoms BILLIONS of years old. It gives me great comfort to know that my existence is the result of an elaborate trial and error mechanism leading, through adversity, environmental upheaval, and competitive natural selection to the appearance of the most complex being in the known universe.
While jeebus raises himself above the universe fruitlessly, I revel in the fact that I am ONE with the universe as I struggle to understand it.

I apologize if this is off-topic but:

Is there a direct connection between people who do not understand/comprehend the age of the Earth and creationism/ID? I assume theisic evolutionists understand(?)

Thanks,

Tytlal

Boy, unless the line between idiocy and parody is even thinner than I realized, I assumed that Jeebus was writing parody. Even if it weren't parody (which the strikethrough portion convinces me it was), HPLC's response is a little silly. Sean, I'm very pleased to be a total naturalist with no supernatural beliefs, but your purple prose tirade doesn't strike me as helpful.

I'm a biologist, but I say the same thing about ID creationists, other creationists, and Charlie Wagner.

— Paul

Ever WATCH a colony of ants, building nests, foraging, "designing" ingenious traps, etc.? A huge percent of their activity is aimless, needless, duplicated effort, and practically random. It's only the cumulative effort of the colony that "averages out" to something productive--there's a little more productive effort than counterproductive, so something gets done.

Now would an intelligently designed bunch of critters run around in useless circles as much as ants do? If they were WELL designed, a colony could acheive the same results with a tenth the number of ants--or a colony of the same size should be able to accomplish 10 times as much.

Blaming the incredibly inefficient behavior of ants on a "designer" would seem to impugn the capabilities of that "designer."

Evolution is always sloppy, jury-rigged, and less than perfectly efficient. Why would design be--unless the designer is?

Please Google: "stigmergy". You will see that blueprints for social insect construction is not "hard wired" in the brain in any meaningful sense.

— p mihalakos

The profoundly psychic Stetter's Gray fox which caused over 3,000 domestic chickens to explode in an 8 week period in China was captured only after 300 local and semi-local shaman used the force of their collective will to erect a prayericle shield around the animal. At that point, a marksman shot the beast through the head with the traditional aluminum bullet.

The fox's fur was divided into several hundred squares and sold on eBay, to pay the shamans' travel expenses. The animals brain was reported missing almost immediately and is now believed to be in the possession of Muqtar al-Asaani, an obscure al Qaeda sympathizer last seen playing stand-up bass in an east Kansas barbecue joint. Whether the brain possesses any residual powers is unknown. Some have speculated that a curiously shanking foul ball at the Kansas City Royals home opener suggests that it may be more powerful than ever, albeit in an erratic and presently unharnessed way.

In fact, there are some very recent examples where evolution made some very poor predictions, but intelligent design has made good ones. Here's a quickie: In 2003, Scientific American published an extensive article discussing how much "junk-DNA" may have functionality.

But I continue to assert the fact that intelligent input was required to set up this system in such a way that it could generate a useful function.

Charlie says: Paul wrote:

I'm a biologist, but I say the same thing about ID creationists, other creationists, and Charlie Wagner.

Thanks for putting me in my own category.
My mother always said that after they made me, they broke the mold.

Mold indeed.

We know you continue to assert it, Charlie. We know you do. Over and over . . . . . . .

— Andy Groves

You have no problem with trashing ID and creationists at every possible opportunity. Why should I sit back while people disparage those who disagree with them with vile invectives, immature rantings, name calling and personal attacks?

— Charlie Wagner

Just Bob said:

"Evolution is always sloppy, jury-rigged, and less than perfectly efficient."

indeed, that is why when i was a student, they were even talking about removing the term "optimal" from the whole theory of optimal foraging strategy. Optimal was a bit of a misnomer, once you get down to the actual details.

CW said:

"You should be glad that I at least stick to the science "

quote of the day?

Posted by Charlie Wagner on April 26, 2005 10:33 AM (e) (s) Ambushing Ants = Intelligent Design Nature 434, 973 (21 April 2005) | 10.1038/434973a Insect behaviour: Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey Alain Dejean, Pascal Jean Solano, Julien Ayroles, Bruno Corbara and Jérôme Orivel1 Abstract: To meet their need for nitrogen in the restricted foraging environment provided by their host plants, some arboreal ants deploy group ambush tactics in order to capture flying and jumping prey that might otherwise escape. Here we show that the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus uses hair from the host plant's stem, which it cuts and binds together with a purpose-grown (emphasis added) fungal mycelium, to build a spongy 'galleried' platform for trapping much larger insects. Ants beneath the platform reach through the holes and immobilize the prey, which is then stretched, transported and carved up by a swarm of nestmates. To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants. See graphic here: http://www.charliewagner.net/ants.jpg...

GACK! I can't believe I'm seeing this on Panda's Thumb, of all places. Repeat after me: Toads != frogs. Toads != frogs. Toads != frogs. ...

What is the Difference Between a Frog and a Toad? The terms "frog" and "toad" are not taxonomic terms used by zoologists to classify tailless amphibians or anuran amphibians (order Anura). These words are old English words that have been used as names for the two most common species of anuran amphibians found in the British Isles: the Common Frog, Rana temporaria, and the Common Toad, Bufo bufo. As the science of zoology advanced scientists began cataloging species from around the world. For this purpose Linnaeus developed his system of classification in the 1700's which is still in use today. For common names, however, there is no standard system for naming animals. As a result, the words "frog" and "toad" have been applied to new species depending upon how much they look like Rana temporaria or Bufo bufo. All anurans that are closely related to Rana temporaria have been termed "true frogs" and those that are closely related to Bufo bufo are called "true toads". However, these two groups represent only two families (Ranidae and Bufonidae, respectively) out of the 29 families of anuran amphibians recognized today.

Hey Charlie, where did you get that spiffy graphic? (http://www.charliewagner.net/ants.jpg . . . ) That Nature paper is like a week old, are you an artist or something?

— Nick

First, congatulations on your nice weblog, which I read regularly.

I live in Hamburg and the story is true (though it has been blown up in the transmission through the media). It has been reported in the local press.

If you can read German, here are three stories from the "Hamburger Abendblatt", which is a reasonably solid paper and not prone to sensationalism: 9.April http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/09/419493.html . . . It is not people blowing up frogs with firecrackers or crows picking them to death. The sick frogs have been observed "exploding" by watchers from an environmental groups. They do not actually explode with a big bang. Rather, they blow their body up to large size (normally, a natural reaction when threatened to look more imposing to attackers), but then, the stomach comes out and the animals die. 16.April: http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/16/422357.html . . . Reason for the frog deaths still unclear - they are being examined by the "Hygieneinstitut" health laboratory. No bacterial infection or environmental pollution that could cause it has been detected. 21.April http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/04/21/424147.html . . . Reason for the frog deaths still unclear. The laboratory is investigating for viral infections. One suspicion is that the agent causing this has been carried in by horses from the nearby racetrack. Apparently, similar phenomena are known from South America. Greetings Karl Heinz

For the record, I just have to apologize to HPLC_Sean.

My rant was, in fact, a parody. I admit, that this post resulted from my frustration at the number of anti-evolutionists who site the "randomness of evolution and natural selection" argument as being damning to the evolutionist cause (and apparently to their perception of beauty/worthiness/security).

Of course, calling evolution "random" is the dryest of all the dry Straw Men in the desert.

On the whole, I agree with you 100%, brother. Sorry to get your feathers ruffled.

Greg -

You mean it wasn't the "related to goo" comment that tipped you off... or have you actually heard that one lately?

:)

Also, even though I was parodying, I still wouldn't be surprised if the line between parody and idiocy was just a bit thinner than we all thought.

If the Bush Administration has taught us anything...

Ambushing Ants = Intelligent Design

naw, the "intelligent designer" did it just for Charlie.

All examples of evolution on this planet that appear incredulous to Charlie were special creations done just for his benefit.

Ain't it grand.

I admit, that this post resulted from my frustration at the number of anti-evolutionists who site the "randomness of evolution and natural selection" argument as being damning to the evolutionist cause (and apparently to their perception of beauty/worthiness/security). Of course, calling evolution "random" is the dryest of all the dry Straw Men in the desert.

— jeebus

Now these new variations in the gene pool are the result of random mutations. Evolutionists have long concurred that according to their theory, mutations are random. So if mutations are random and natural selection can act only on what's already there, how is the whole process not random? Where is the insight and the creative power to produce new processes, structures and adaptations?

— Charlie Wagner

At the end of this process, I should have no [or very few] black jelly-beans. I should have a reasonably even mix of the remaining colours, except for red . . . .which should number about 10% greater than the others.

— Ken Singleton

So I create a scanner that kicks away all the black ones that it sees;

— Ken Shackelton

I'll try to predict CW's response . . . "But they're still jelly beans. They haven't morphed into Hershey bars."

— Jim Wynn

And that settles that.

My experience is that CW likes deterministic arguments, but is distinctly uncomfortable (perhaps hostile) with probabilistic and statistical arguments. If you wish to convince him you must deal with the handicap.

Snag!

— Charlie Wagner

I didn't miss it by much though, did I? "It's still a jelly bean" isn't very far removed from the tired "tornado in a junkyard" canard.

— Jim Wynn

So if mutations are random and natural selection can act only on what's already there, how is the whole process not random?

Evolution by mutation, natural selection and drift is totally, 100% random.

And that settles that.

— Charlie Wagner

Oops. Scratch that last "And that settles that."

My jelly-bean scenario was not designed to minic evolution [as I stated from the beginning], it was designed to show Charlie that a process that involves random productive elements, followed by non-random selection processes IS NOT a random process overall.

Charlie seems to think that a process that involves ANY random or pseudo-random elements will be a random process overall....this is simply untrue.

Re "Charlie seems to think that a process that involves ANY random or pseudo-random elements will be a random process overall . . . .this is simply untrue."

For an obvious example, just consider quantum mechanics. Every interaction of quantum "particles" is random, yet solid matter is somehow built out of them.

Henry

Maybe it's the rapture, and only toads are going to heaven?

lol, god's ultimate joke! it was actually the toads that were the chosen ones all along.

Toads? Not beetles?

No, the Beatles are going one by one...

"My jelly-bean scenario was not designed to minic evolution [as I stated from the beginning], it was designed to show Charlie that a process that involves random productive elements, followed by non-random selection processes IS NOT a random process overall."

Right, you make a very important point. Still, I had to jump at Charlie's mention of the "designed" element in your scenario.

Designed elements need not apply for natural selection to emerge.

You know something that is interesting.....human design follows an evolutionary process [descent with modification, followed by a selection process] much the same as is found in nature:

Example: designing a better mousetrap

1. The human takes an existing mousetrap design and imagines modifications that will more closely suit his needs, [but he could instead decide to make small random changes to the design].

2. He builds his new prototypes.

3. He tests the prototypes by trying to catch mice.

4. Those designs that have problems, or are no better than the original are discarded.

5. Those designs that show improvement are the basis for further modifications [descent with modification].

6. Repeat the process until you can no longer improve upon the design by modifying the original. If he thinks up an entirely new process or design....he can discard the existing design and start the process again by following this new insight....Biological evolution does not have this option, it is locked into using only pre-existing models from which to make changes.

Most human designs follow this process, many designs are simply contemplated and rejected before the build stage....these could also be considered mutations from the original design.

What the ID/Creationist/Charlie seem unable to grasp is that its does not matter if the mutation is random, or intentionally designed. The selection process will work in any event. They also do not seem to be able to grasp that it does not matter if the selection process is performed by nature, or by human intervention....it will also work in any event.

Yep. Humans have the advantage of being able to look ahead, but have limited time and resources which limits the number of working trials.

Nature otoh doesn't have look-ahead, but can try an astronomical number of trial cases in parallel, over geological time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that all toads are frogs, but all frogs are not toads.

Although there is no scientific distinction between "frogs" and "toads", frogs are typically smooth-skinned, have long hind limbs for leaping, and live in water, while toads have warty, drier skin, with shorter hind limbs for hopping, and live on land (Halliday and Adler, 1986).

The subdivisions of the Salientia clade as given on that webpage seem to alternate between "frog" and "toad"; neither is a superset of the other.

Henry

To Mr. Karl-H. Ranitzsch: Any follow up on the Hamburg Exploding Toads (Krötensterben)? I remember watching toads explode when jumped on by children. Not me, of cause.

To Mr. Karl-H. Ranitzsch: Any follow up on the Hamburg Exploding Toads (Krötensterben)? I remember watching toads explode when jumped on by children. Not me, but those bad "street boys", of course.

Now a veterinary surgeon, Frank Mutschmann, who has examined the remains of the toads, said they had been pierced with a single peck by crows trying to eat their livers. This in turn caused the toads to explode. "The toads swell up as a form of self-defence. But when their livers are taken away and their stomachs are punctured, their blood vessels explode, their lungs collapse and the other organs come out," Mutschmann said.

Has bubble burst over exploding toad tale? Michael Hopkin Evidence points to bloated toads and hungry birds, but not explosions. A mystery of exploding toads has turned many people into armchair zoologists this week. Amphibians in a previously obscure German pond have reportedly been blowing up in their thousands, leaving a grisly trail of innards stretching several feet in their wake - and observers desperately trying to work out why. [...] In the wake of the confusion, reports have also emerged of toads meeting a similarly gruesome fate in Denmark. Despite much puzzling, experts have yet to find any reason for the amphibians to balloon to three times their size before literally exploding, as eyewitnesses to the unfortunate incidents have claimed. Various theories independently explaining observations of bloated toads and messy remains lead many biologists to think that observers have been leaping to conclusions, and that the toads are not really exploding. [...] The water from the pond and from the nearby River Elbe contains no pathogen or pesticide that is known to be lethal to wildlife. And when Himmelreich and her colleagues carried out a biotest on the water (they put fish and shrimps in to see if they could survive) it came out clean. Frank Mutschmann, a Berlin-based veterinarian, has examined some of the corpses and says that they bear the scars of a predator's attack. He thinks birds may simply have made a very messy job of eating their favourite parts of the toads, such as the liver. April and May are the months when toads migrate to ponds to spawn, Himmelreich points out, which means that this season could represent easy pickings for birds. Perhaps the walkers let their imaginations run wild when they chanced upon the victims, she proposes. Himmelreich says she has never seen a toad explode. There are some symptoms that might lead an observer to think that a toad was on the verge of blowing up, Himmelreich adds, particularly if a wounded toad wandered into a pond. "Maybe they were full of water, and in their agony they were also trying to suck in air," Himmelreich says. People watching bloated, rasping toads might well think an explosion was imminent, she says. Some toads are also known to puff themselves up as a defence reaction, perhaps as a means of warding off attack by snakes aiming to swallow them whole. But zoologists doubt that a toad could swell to three times its usual size. "I really think someone needs to go back and check the primary source," comments Barry Clarke, a herpetologist at the Natural History Museum in London. "I've learnt never to say with animals that anything is impossible. But the idea of exploding toads - well let's face it, it's pythonesque."

Oh, good - guess that means that while a few of them croaked due to birds, they weren't croaking en masse.

While I'm curious about the crow theory, my understanding is that crows are not generally nocturnal birds; since the toads seem to be "exploding" mostly around 2 and 3 a.m., it seems a bit uncharacteristic of the crows to be the sole cause for this. I've also heard that biologists have been posted at the sites in order to monitor any possible predatory causes for the phenomenon - does anyone think they might notice crows pecking the livers out of hundreds of toads? I'm just saying...

Exploding toads are obviously the future of toad 'design' as only someting intelligent can be behind explosions such as these. After all, we're the most intelligent animal on the planet and we blow things up all the time; bombs, cars, mountains, Iraqi civlians and many other things.

Do you think ants can comprehend who we are? If we were created you think we could comprehend who made us?

Ants may not be able to understand what we are, but an ant is still very much aware of an ant-eater that tries to break into its nest or a human for that matter. In terms of some designer, we have more chance of being able to understand such a designer than an ant, unless you are claiming that ants and humans are equally as intelligent? Of course, you can never establish if there is any intelligent designer so this is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Not a good debating style I'm afraid.

You might want to look at the German sites (just a thought). You will note that the municipal site http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt (Your editer wouldn't let me include the rest of this url)
says only that hundreds of toad were found dead. Nothing about exploding. You have to look in the popular press for exploding stories eg http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,trt2m1/panorama/artikel/65/52013/
Such stories mostly seem not to be from Hamburg papers.

We need to get some camera men to hang out at the Pond Of Death for a few days so I can see all the action :D