new URL, old rule coming back
So, Vincent Fleury always unable to deal with the scientific content of his publication seek other means to shut down critics.
It will be rather difficult.
Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Vekris Antoine
-
Vekris Antoine
L2/R2
The second anniversary of my request for help to position the four vortices Fleury claims is rapidly approaching and I was looking around for something relevant to make a celebration poster.
I opened The Mechanisms Underlying Primitive Streak Formation in the Chick Embryo, by Manli Chuai and Cornelis J. Weijer1 for inspiration and of course Fleury’s webpage with his english short presentation.
-
vf
-the model you show here is a purely hydrodynamic model (vortex dipole inside a circle), you really understand nothing. Even wrong, at least, it’s an approach by hydrodynamic vortices, that should upset Mr Myers considerably, you should send him the paper for review.
-sure, there is a flow oriented caudally in tetrapods, this model is wrong : there are cells flowing in the dark area, they flow caudally. They are just not stained in this assay, go to see the other fluorescent tracks on my web site, you will see that there is a flow oriented caudally, “below” the KRS. The vortex that revolves only in the posterior to anterior direction shown here is erroneous.
-not only this model has Vx=Vy=0 at the intersection of the KRS and the anterio-posterior axis, but it has V(normal)=0 all along the perimeter; this means that the circle…stays for ever circular. It is not a moving boundary model, it is a flow inside a static shape.
There is strictly no morphogenesis in this model, it is just a flow inside a fixed shape… wrong again.You really understand nothing.
So pathetic. -
vf
faut arrêter tes saloperies mon Coco
-
vf
>>Feel free to include a link to the URL of these images in your next comment (if it wasn’t a lie) ASAP
sure :
http://www.msc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~vincent/englishEnresume3.htm
you will find plenty of it
you understand truly nothing.
“caudal extensions of the embryo”
how do you think the embryo extends?
Have a look at the model you show here : no extension whatsoever, and the velocities all along the border, are completely wrong way. it can’t be worse, just look : the velocities along the circle, in the model, are at 90° to the real case, that certainly fit’s nicely reality.
I have to go for more serious things, you are pathetic, indeed.
The others are not, they do research, one has a right to be wrong, in research, it is a cooperative effort, I do not blame them.
-
Oldcola
A lot of pathetic people around you Dr Fleury. I’m glad to be in the same set as Chuai and Weijer and Myers.
One have to chose his camp and reality based interpretations of the world are my favorite ones.So, the model proposed by Chuai & Weijer, an analogy which describes nicely the cells movement during the period where vortices are observed at the epiblast level, is restricted, it can’t describe more than this particular stage of development. So what? They don’t claim more than that.
You are the one claiming more and unable to display it. You know you should bring proof of the existence of L2/R2 (and those should be vortices not caudal extension of the embryo) if you want to preserve some respectability on the subject. In a previous, deleted because redacted in french, comment you announced images of these vortices.
Feel free to include a link to the URL of these images in your next comment (if it wasn’t a lie) ASAP.So, let me be pathetic
PZ Myers comment concerns your flawed view of embryogenesis based in an imaginary model which remains without experimental/reality based substratum since your paper on Organogenesis in 2005. That’s what I call pathetic.
I acknowledge that your model evolved since 2005, you expelled a lot of errors, but many persist and it is still unconnected with reality ; e.g. the equations you published concern a quite small subset of cells around the KS, without taking in account the great majority of cellular displacements, isn’t it? Without taking in account the available detailed description of cell movements. Isn’t it?
C&W do much better.
-
Oldcola
Now, I almost fallen in this one.
your equations are supposed to represent the consequences of motility of cells at the proximity of KS before the appearance of the PS, at this particular stage of gastrulation, not later.You, so eager of the spatio-temporal aspect of gastrulation, you don’t mix things, are you?
So, L2/R2 not only imaginary, but also outside the embryo, Coco!
-
Oldcola
Fail: At specific question, specific answer required. Replicating a link to your short version isn’t enough, you are able to understand that, aren’t you?
-
-
Vekris Antoine
pharyngulitis
Is the surge of affluence due to the mention of ones blog even at the comments of Pharyngula.
Welcome guys.
Feel comfortable but be afraid, I’m the one manipulating the Master!
Using noodly appendages of course. -
Vekris Antoine
pre-cteappv Oops 090713
This is a pre-cteappv Oops and I start wondering how Fleury manage to find journals with so poor review process as to let go to press such mistakes.
This one is from An Elasto-Plastic Model of Avian Gastrulation, Vincent Fleury, Organogenesis 2:1, 6-16, 2005.
-
Vekris Antoine
4 The paleontological point of view
There is not as much paleontology as one would expect by the title of the chapter. Mostly paleontology is an excuse to further discuss developmental biology, except for subsection 4.1
4.1 Tetrapod origin
If we turn to paleontology, we find a description of tetrapods appearance into three main steps. Appearance of chordates, segmentation of lateral fins, appearance of tetrapods.
That’s the shortest version one can get except “pouf they appeared”. Interesting nevertheless the second step, the “segmentation of lateral fins“. This is one of three hypothetical, not exclusive, working models. Not to be used as a granted fact (see below).
Good news, bad news.
Good news are that Fleury abandonned the idea it appeared in one of his conferences announcement, and promoted in fora, that the tetrapods may have appeared suddenly, with all there attributes, specifying suddenly as “in a single generation“.
But he still think that:
These early tetrapods have well formed complex limbs apparently almost “right away”.
Almost right away being an estimate of the time-lapse between Haikouichthys ercaicunensis, presenting a single median fin-fold and tail, to the tetrapodomorph Tiktaalik roseae; almost right-away corresponds to 100 millions years. At least we are not anymore at the “single generation“level.
Progressive modifications are problematic for a model which is based on a suddenly appearing bauplan.
-
Vekris Antoine
geometry
I’m greek and during my young years I was feed a lot of geometry. You know how it is, national pride for the ancestors, especially under a military junta. So, I’m quite sensible when one presents geometrical problems incorrectly.
My very first objection concerning Fleury’s model1 was that he described the epiblast cells as contained between two extracellular membranes. When I pointed that his only response was that if there is a single basal membrane that doesn’t affect his model, the flow would be just faster. From that point on you can’t trust the guy with any description.
n=3 is discussing. 
vf are discussing. 
Vekris Antoine
Question
This is an old question which never received an answer. And certainly an answer wasn’t required before the publication of cteappv. As everything in the paper is about clarification and one more particular point remain unclear, I’ll post my question here and maybe Vincent Fleury will be kind enough to provide an answer.
-
n=3
Hi Tonio,
do you really expect a reply before going on with the rest of the article ?
Vekris Antoine
Oops 090630
By the way “I can has L2/R2″ is not a sentence
Aha! this is not a sentence. I was waiting for this one since I read the paper.
For Dr Fleury first step here, and second one here, both necessary to get the flavor.
For everybody else, a puzzle served below [p22 col2 §1]:
The significance of the reversed flexion of the hindlimb in 10% of the experiments reported in reference [59] is unclear since the electroporation experiment used to insert Tbx5 in the hindplate prior to hindlimb growth has a polarity in itself. If this experiment would be confirmed, it would be an uncommon case of a chirality, directly induced by a scalar non-chiral field. This would suggest that Tbx5 codes for a chiral molecule.
Maybe Dr Fleury will take the time to provide the solution. Hopefully this will not end as “I can has chirality??“.
While he is visiting lolcats and fails to have an insight about lolchickens I’ll give it a try to prepare a question for him.
Vekris Antoine
Oops 090628
[p 20, col 2, §3]
Genetic analysis, in relation to evolutionary issues, shows that actually, genes for limbs and for tails are similar, and many are identical ([98] and references above31, Ref. [60]). Also, genes which serve to form the true limb skeleton, are actually present in fish fins, in which such skeletal elements are absent [98] (Fig. 21).
31 “Not only are the same Hox genes expressed in both developing appendages but they are expressed in identical spatial and temporal patterns” in reference [85].
Vekris Antoine
help a fellow hang himself
A funny side-effect of PZ Myers “An ontogeny of toilet drain behavior” was to bring Fleury’s theory within the range of one of the famous crackpot detectors, Suzan Mazur.
vf, -
vincent fleury
to the ” isolated blogger ” : the word paradigm shift appears explicitely in the website of the CNRS, about the determination of plant morphogenesis by mechanical fields, and related work along such lines:
http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/1485.htm
best wishes, “isolated blogger”‘
-
Oldcola
Once I have finished with cteappv Fleury I’ll certainly take a look at that.
Don’t loose time with other peoples work, it doesn’t validate your.Concentrate to explain your bugs, if possible. Plenty of them.
-
vincent fleury
not only you have already sunk completely my poor old chap, but you have carried Dr Myers in your sinking.
Part of the comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded” – “comments out of focus (say, regarding my private life) will be discarded”
-
vincent fleury
Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”
-
vincent fleury
You do not understand science M. Vekris
it took you 2 years to just see that there is a flow forming around the presumptive navel a hyperbolic flow with streamlines oriented caudally, and streamlines oriented rostrally. Had I only seen that, modeled it, and dragged the attention towards this, that would suffice to justify my entire scientific work, and all your comments against me are, in view of that, compeltely mediocre and unfair.that shakes the entire picture of body development. Instead of understanding this you keep on defamating and trying to introduce archane subtleties about the nature of the flow etc.
You sent the paper to Dr Myers, to discover what : Dr Myers is completely unaware of the existence of vortices in embryo development. How ridicule. I cannot believe he is a scientist. Oh dear, and he holds a blog?, and pontifies all the time? How ridicule. How can he dare speak of science and comment papers?
At least you have learnt, thanks to me, that these vortices existed,and you know a bit more than him : see, I am ready to make a compliment, you need not sent the paper to Myers, you know more of the topic than him.
You are not doing science here. If you were, you would do this from your lab, where you would immediately be stopped. Everything I talk about is published in articles, and reproduced on my personal university website, and nobody around me complains. I have the support of the CNRS, as you know from the lawyers.
Please sent the comments to EPJ, and I will correct the errors, there are certainly a few.
The habilis-erectus distinction for what I see is ridiculous considering what is discussed
Everything you say around the 2 or 4 vortices is rubbish
Evrything you say about the lateral plate is rubbish, and a fruit of your hate, and Myers, who says the same thing is just an ignorant.
A few references have skipped during the editorial process due to length of the paper, fair enough
etc.
The segmentation thing, which is very small in my paper, is certainly not invalidated, I was just raising a concern about the discrepancies in the literature.
I disagree with what you say about Darwin.
etc. etc.
Your aim, here is not to discuss, it is to set an unfair trial, entirely of your own by the way, as you state yourself, you are isolated, and even lonely. These manners are just yours, scientists do not do that, and when they do, like Myers and you, they just sink, as they show how little they know of the true, leading edge science.
-
vincent fleury
so, I am right? You keep on not seeing these flows as important? Youd had not seen them before at all, before jumping on me; Wetzel did not see the caudal flow, the contemporary researchers did not see them, nor model them correctly, and despite all my weaknesses in biology, I was able to see that and model it correctly?
How cool.
So you see, a man’s errors are his portals of discovery (James Joyce).
so cool.
-
vincent fleury
oh a simple example about the word “arbitrary”, it is a problem of double translation, the original text writes twice “to any extent”
-
vincent fleury
ahem :
ARCHETYPAL
Of or belonging to the Archetype, or ideal primitive form upon which all the beings of a group seem to be organised.Origin of species, glossary
-
vincent fleury
that can continue for ever you know “ideal primitive form” “general pattern”, that is what we are dealing with, and I can model it. So cool.
And as stated (somewhere) by Darwwin, the archetype has a complete plan, and the other animals are formed by stretching the limbs to “any extent”, which is synonymous of “to an arbitrary length”give us the statistics of visit of this very site, if it is so interesting.
Your remark about the mesodermal cells is so ridiculous : you are already talking about the cells flowing away, the discrepancy between the flows I show in the paper and the true “away” flow is small and related to the fact that cells also flow through the U turn of the primitve streak, it is very simple to add that, but you do not master these things. You prefer to ironize and track unsignificant errors, without seeing the problem in depth; my model is ok for that too, do not worry. The body of the embryo forms from cells coming in. You really do not understand anything to the formation of tetrapods.
Please send comments along these lines to EPJ, do not forget. Make my day.
-
vf
Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”
-
vf
you are pathetic, Vekris. You should stop;
-
Oldcola
You are welcome to discuss science here Dr Fleury, observing the rules.
Nothing else. -
Oldcola
Dr Fleury,
I will be kind and assume that you have a short memory span (less than 2 years) and I’ll refresh it.
We discussed those caudally directed cellular flows almost two years ago and here is the link to your explanations.
You failed to show the presence of the two vortices termed L2/R2 displayed at the time on your website of the University of Rennes.
I repeat to help you cope with your memory problems, that my question was originally asked because I wanted to see how those L2/R2 was related with the hindlimb field.
There is no experimental evidence of the L2/R2 vortices still today. You must be aware of that. And if some day you are able to show that those vortices are not imaginary, it will be time to take a look at how they relate with the hindlimb morphogenic fields.So, don’t come tell me:
it took you 2 years to just see that there is a flow forming around the presumptive navel a hyperbolic flow with streamlines oriented caudally, and streamlines oriented rostrally.
spend your time to show them these two vortices to complete your schema.
I already explained that the critics of your theory, especially the lack of experimental data confirming crucial points of it, has nothing to do personally with you.
I sent the paper to an embryologist, friendly to the integration of biological structuralism in the evodevo domain, his specialty, to have a review by a biologist, suspecting that EPJ AP didn’t addressed it to one specialist of the field for review. Am I wrong on that? I was isolated, it’s not anymore the case. I’m really grateful to PZ Myers for spending his time with your paper.
I’m not doing science here, I just comment on a dreadful paper which should be an embarrassment for you, the journal that accepted it, and maybe your colleagues. Not many of them to support you on Pharyngula, isn’t it?.
A few errors? Are you joking and I don’t get it? Misreporting so badly a paper and driving conclusions could you call that fair enough? Confusing proteins with mRNAs, in situ hybridization with cartilage staining, comparing different developmental stages and driving conclusions without checking the controls, seeing fin buds adjacent to the telencephalon of the control and driving conclusions about the mutant, driving conclusions about the way genes expression regulation is related to pressure without data. What’s the relation with:
A few references have skipped during the editorial process due to length of the paper, fair enough
You are kidding us Dr Fleury, aren’t you?
OK, that was funny. As much funny as this one:
“if the limb bud forms from endoderm and ectoderm, it has dorso-ventral polarity (like a normal hand), if a limb bud forms more proximally by a fold of ectoderm only, the limb paddle has double dorsal polarity“
Let’s be serious, starting with an easy one:
I disagree with what you say about Darwin.
You may disagree as much as you want and it will help your exposé‘s credibility to read and comment about the use of the term “archetype” by Darwin, give as the references of the pages where “scaffold” is used and “arbitrary” lengths are mentioned. This would be a nice use of this discussion space to support your opinions. Open Access CC-license & discussion possible; easy to post links.
Everything I talk about is published in articles, and reproduced on my personal university website, and nobody around me complains.
Realy?
You must know that I don’t give a shit about what is published in personal university websites, but maybe you are a groupie of Michael Behe because his non-sense is reproduced in his personal university website; do you?
Neither I give a shit of what is published in scientific journals if it’s rubbish. -
Oldcola
And the definition is the last common ancestor presenting the traits considered, right?
-
Oldcola
“to any extent” doesn’t fit with “arbitrary”, bad translation? from english to english?
-
Oldcola
A lot of people are interested, it’s a metric equivalent to the impact factor
-
Oldcola
Dr Fleury,
mesoderm cells moving caudally, say to form extra-embryonic tissues, clearly depicted, in a completely different flow pattern then the one you claim (vortices), can’t be considered as validating the presence of vortices centered at the hindlimb fields.So for the moment you are dead wrong.
Still “how cool”? -
Oldcola
Let me finish first my review and I’ll write an Open Letter to the editor-in-chief of EPJAP
Until you have new data available validating the presence of L2/R2 and their relationship with the hindlimb morphogenic field (embryologists definition), I’ll just keep linking to the anniversary of the missing vortices.
Just to avoid loosing time stupidly and go on to finish with the paper .
In the mean time maybe you can explain your jokes.
-
n=3
A link for “Confusing proteins with mRNAs”?
n=3 1:25 pm on August 10, 2009 Permalink |
THE question is if di Meglio is aware of that: http://bit.ly/jvpR5
Why you don’t ask him what he thinks about it ? It would be interesting to know.