That’s no Jellyfish

It has already been pointed out elsewhere that the “jellyfish” produced from rat heart tissue is not really much of one, so Brian Thomas’ article What Does It Take to Make a Jellyfish? is really superfluous.

Many jellyfish are transparent, and they have seemingly simple movements and few visible interacting parts. They should, therefore, be easy to synthesize with man-made parts, but that’s not what bioengineers discovered when they recently built a jellyfish mimic from rat heart cells attached to a silicone frame.

Whatever makes him think they should be “easy to synthesize”? Those pieces of information he gives really aren’t enough to call it. Or that the full thing was even originally attempted, before the researchers settled for this supposed cop-out. (Don’t get me wrong – this is pretty amazing. It’s just no jellyfish.)

A team of Unites States collaborators produced a structure that, when energized by an external electrical shock, flexed and moved like a jellyfish in a water tank. Nature News posted a video showing their construct in motion.

You can see that video above, while the Nature News article is here.

Just what hurdles did the research team overcome in order to achieve their modest results?

The bioengineers used “a systematic design strategy to reverse engineer a muscular pump,” according to the technical report in Nature Biotechnology. They also wrote, “The constructs, termed ‘medusoids,’ were designed with computer simulations and experiments to match key determinants of jellyfish propulsion and feeding performance by quantitatively mimicking structural design, stroke kinematics and animal-fluid interactions.”

Those quotes do not really answer the question posed, which may have to do with the mismatch between the story Thomas wants to tell and what was actually done and attempted. The paper is here, but is not open access.

Jellyfish may not be so simple after all.

Ya think?

Even though it was highly-engineered, the man-made construct is far inferior to the more excellently designed actual jellyfish. ABC News wrote, “their artificial jellyfish, for instance, is far simpler than a real one. A real one can steer through the water; Medusoid could only go straight.” And perhaps no human engineer will ever devise a jellyfish construct that can repair and reproduce itself.

Reproduction is key here. You may have noticed that we are on a similar subject here to Paley’s watch, but approaching it from the other direction. Paley’s watch tries to draw parallels between human designs and nature, but one of its key flaws is that basically nothing we have ever built – at least in the physical world, computer viruses are another matter – can properly reproduce itself. Thomas concludes his article:

The implication is clear. Whoever designed real jellyfish was much smarter than ordinary people.

This apparently anti-Paley sentiment – that nature is far superior, and thus qualitatively different, to what humans create – has previously been seen in a Jerry Bergman A&F article discussed in Who Needs Paley Anyway? Now, if we could get these medusoids to reproduce they would also probably be able to evolve (assuming hereditary is part of the equation, which is practically a given), we can start talking. Because then we would see that their path to a much more convincing organism is not that that any designer would take, and with that we would also see how silly it is to think that you could easily design an organism from the ground up. The implication would only be “clear” about the conclusion that Thomas makes if the premise that there is a designer were true. It certainly doesn’t prove that there was (that would be circular reasoning after all, and we can’t have that).

6 thoughts on “That’s no Jellyfish

  1. How do you do it? How do you monitor this river of poo day after day? The argument here is precisely the same as the one supporting heliocentrism – inverse perspective. Ideas for our designs come from observing natural structures, this experiment is an excellent example of that. To claim the converse – design happens with our eyes closed, we open them and see that someone else has been doing the same thing on a grander scale – is incorrect. By the same token, a phallic symbol is taller than it is wide, so everything taller than it is wide is a phallic symbol. The world is then so full of phallic symbols, I cannot believe it’s an accident, someone must have made it that way. The Lord is a phallic fetishist.

    • “The world is then so full of phallic symbols, I cannot believe it’s an accident, someone must have made it that way. The Lord is a phallic fetishist.”

      No, but I think YOU are. 😐

  2. You’re right–that’s no jellyfish. I can’t believe our tax dollars are wasted on this. Man’s feeble and vain attempt to convince others that he has created life.

    • This research provides invaluable insights in how heart cells function, grow and work together. To dismiss it because the resulting product is not “life” is very short sighted.

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s