Saturday, September 03, 2011

Jellyfish - an Amazing Creation

[a giant Nomura's jellyfish]

My daughter visited an aquarium last week and one thing which impressed her were the jellyfish.

Jellyfish are indeed remarkable and unique creatures. These are living, moving, reproducing animals which thrive in the oceans yet have almost no distinct organs.

Jellyfish do not have specialized digestive, osmoregulatory, central nervous, respiratory, or circulatory systems. They digest using the gastrodermal lining of the gastrovascular cavity, where nutrients are absorbed. They do not need a respiratory system since their skin is thin enough that the body is oxygenated by diffusion. They have limited control over movement, but can use their hydrostatic skeleton to accomplish movement through contraction-pulsations of the bell-like body; some species actively swim most of the time, while others are passive much of the time. Jellyfish are composed of more than 90% water; most of their umbrella mass is a gelatinous material — the jelly — called mesoglea which is surrounded by two layers of epithelial cells which form the umbrella (top surface) and subumbrella (bottom surface) of the bell, or body.

A jellyfish does not have a brain or central nervous system, but rather has a loose network of nerves, located in the epidermis, which is called a "nerve net". A jellyfish detects various stimuli including the touch of other animals via this nerve net, which then transmits impulses both throughout the nerve net and around a circular nerve ring, through the rhopalial lappet, located at the rim of the jellyfish body, to other nerve cells. Some jellyfish also have ocelli: light-sensitive organs that do not form images but which can detect light, and are used to determine up from down, responding to sunlight shining on the water's surface. These are generally pigment spot ocelli, which have some cells (not all) pigmented.

It's hard to imagine an animal so bizarre in comparison to most other life. It's truly awe inspiring to consider the variety of God's creatures.


Alex said...

Help bring the geula.
Quote your sources.

Abe said...

Oh golly gee gosh!

I'll plant those stunning convictions right next to the bubonic plague and pancreatic cancer. One day god creates a remarkable jellyfish and the next a horrifying disease. I have often surmised that god is bi-polar. When he's in hight spirits he'll astonish you with a miraculous creation. But when he's miserable and depressed, don't cross his path. He just might kill you or at the very least get you fired from your job or have you expelled from nursing school.

jewish philosopher said...

Suffering isn't a bad thing Abe - as I've explained, it's all for the good.

Jeff said...

" it's all for the good."

For whose good?

I have seen, that for deeply believing people, any event, no matter how bad, "is for the better". They find this truly useful to console themselves. But I always ask, "for whose better?", and then there's an uncomfortable silence in the room.

I do agree that there can be value in hardship and failure. We can earn from our mistakes, and sometimes we can grow from suffering. But I see a lot of suffering in which there is no growth-- only misery, torture and loss. It would be an insult and a lie to tell the victim that he has benefited from his misfortune.

I good example would be a victim of rape or violent sexual abuse. I intentionally pick this so you can't throw the afterlife/olam habah at me. This person survives, but severely scarred, experiencing post trauma symptoms the remainder of his/her life. They cannot form normal relationships, they have poisonous relationships with their abusive family members, and most likely their life is forever ruined.

Please explain to me for whom this is "good".

The book of Job attempts to address suffering. But in the end, its just god. It doesn't explain anything.

jewish philosopher said...

The message of Job is that God's wisdom is so much greater than our own that it's absurd for us to question him. I have had the opportunity to take a three year old, kicking and screaming literally, to the doctor for a shot. Can she comprehend how it's "for the good"? But of course it is; I'm not torturing her for the fun of it.

ksil said...

any of you surprised that JP worships a violent, obsessive, murderous, torturous, vengful god?

makes total sense to me!

have fun with your worship, JP! lol

jewish philosopher said...

I worship the most loving being imaginable, as I explain here.

However a loving father doesn't give his children everything and allow them to do anything; that's called criminal negligence, not love.

And what do you worship, ksil? Your penis? A pretty tiny god, most likely. LOL

natschuster said...


What is your basis for sayong G-d is bad? What is your basis for saying anything is bad?

ksil said...

nat, read scripture. pretty sick stuff.

jewish philosopher said...

Love your neighbor, love the stranger, help the widow and orphan, honor your parents, honor the elderly, no killing, no stealing, no adultery. Horrible, sick, disgusting.

Unlike Darwin, who taught us that men are merely animals who should be treated and bred as such.

natschuster said...


What is your basis for saying anything in scripture is bad? Moreover, yuo don't believe that scriptre is an ancurate record. So maybe nothing in scripture that makes G-d look bad actually happened. So you have no basis for saying G-d is bad.

ksil said...

good point!

bottom line: scripture (as you pointed out) is not devine and is man-made. there is no god.

i appreciate your support.

man created god in these fairy tales to be a horrible, divisive and vengful so the creaters of said religion would scare them into obedience and belief. obvious. an undeducated, primitive people would obviously fall into line.

thank you for pointing out all of these problems.

jewish philosopher said...

Speaking of fairy tales, explain to me exactly how worms turned into people.

ksil said...

worms into people?

water into blood?
stick into snake?
global flood?
sun stopping in the sky?
talking donkey
etc. etc. etc.

you, of all (crazy) people should have no problem with worms turning into people (clearly you have no understanding of evolution and/or common ancestry)


jewish philosopher said...

Explain to exactly how worms can become people. It's just nonsense. A talking donkey is no more difficult for God to create than a talking man.

mike said...

Now this is pure Gadlus!

mike said...

Ha! Now we plainly see what idiots these evolutionists are! They are sure their garbage is right, until it's wrong.

natschuster said...


I still haven't seen yuor basis fro saying that G-d is bad, or that badness even exists.

And the stuff scientists wouod have us believe, e.g. the universe popping out of nothing, spontaneous generation of life, bacteria turning into blue whales, etc. is much more fantastic than anything in the Torah.

Ksil said...

Nat, you are obviously trying to imply that there is no morality without the old testament. This has been debunked. Let me know if you would like links to the particlar websites that have thoroughly refuted this ridiculous argument.

As far claiming scientific theory is "fantastic" as the madeup stories in the torah, well that is just absurd. The scientific method and theory leads one to particular conclusions, based on SCIENCE....not fairy take bullshit.

Its truly remarkable that you and other frummies are so brainwashed that you cant see it. I feel bad for your kids

jewish philosopher said...

"This has been debunked."

Sure, just like the Holocaust has been debunked as a hoax.

Obviously without God everything is permitted.

"not fairy take bullshit"

Such as evolution. LOL.

"frummies are so brainwashed"

While we're on the topic of science, may I mention that "brainwashing" is a psuedo-scientific myth invented by the CIA during the Korean War.

"Brainwashing" defenses have never succeeded in court, because there is no such thing.

natschuster said...


Moral behavior can exist without the Torah, but there is no basis in logic for it. And there is no basis in logic for saying the Torah, or anything is bad.

And science cannot explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the human mind, etc, etc. A universe popping into existance is more fantastic than a talking donkey. Small molecules turingin into cells is more miraculous than anything in the Torah.

Joseph said...

Darwin never said we are "no different" then animals. Quite the opposite.

"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience."

Additionally, he made it quite clear that he was Agnostic, not Atheist.

But as is typical of your writings, you ignore the overwhelming data that conflicts with your base prejudice.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't know where that quote was from, however Darwin believed that we are animals.

"Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate kingdom. (1. Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire gives a detailed account of the position assigned to man by various naturalists in their classifications: 'Hist. Nat. Gen.' tom. ii. 1859, pp. 170-189.) Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom" Descent of Man chapter 5

If he believed in anything, he seems to have believe in Satan not God.

"What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!" Letter 1856

Jeff said...

JP and friends,

Your incredulity regarding evolution is not understandable, given that you do seem to be able to understand an incomprehensible and infinite god who always existed and can do anything. If you can believe that why is evolution so difficult? Worms into people is nothing compared to what you are prepared to accept: something that you can NEVER understand. Seems a little inconsistent to me.

jewish philosopher said...

Why do I have to understand the designer to know there was a designer? Remember the obelisk found on the moon in 2001: a space odyssey? The creator is unknown and perhaps unknowable, however no one questioned his existence.

Jeff said...

"Why do I have to understand the designer to know there was a designer? "

But you aren't just claiming that there is a designer.

You also make claims about his nature, which are much more fantastic and incredulous than evolution. For example, you claim that He is intelligent, implying complexity, yet He always existed and was not created Himself. Is that easier to you than "worms to people"?

You claim that he is omniscient, yet also regrets. That to me is much more difficult to understand than evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

Take the JFK assassination. Whichever theory you want to accept, it's very complicated. There are many unanswered questions. However no one is suggesting that therefore it's much simpler to assume that this was a natural event and the a meteorite coincidently shaped exactly like a rifle bullet killed the president.

natschuster said...


The problem with evolution is that evolutionists insist that evolution can be explained without going outside the laws of nature we are familiar with.

Jeff said...

Taking your JFK analogy a bit farther--

and nobody claims that an angry alien with special powers, using psychokinesis, caused JFK's head to explode as though a bullet penetrated it. All while not explaining how the alien got here, where it came from, why it wanted JFK dead, and how it could pull off such a feat. But we know about this from a document we found.

"The problem with evolution is that evolutionists insist that evolution can be explained...."

Any why is that a problem?

jewish philosopher said...

Millions of people witnessing a spaceship flying over Dallas that day, as millions witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai, would probably do a lot to support the "space aliens did it" theory.

Incidentally, scientists have proposed the "space aliens did it" theory for life's origin.

Anything is preferable to saying "God did it" which would then make the clergy, who study God, more important than scientists, who merely study God's creations. 

natschuster said...


Because it is very hard to explain evolution using just the laws of nature we are famiilar with.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps G-d had just a bad morning when He created the Chironex fleckeri and other box jellies...

jewish philosopher said...

The box jellies were created for a supremely important purpose - to discourage people from splashing around all day in the ocean, possibly wearing immodest swimwear, instead of studying Jewish Philosophy.

Ironmistress said...

This guy could perhaps say a thing or two on this debate...