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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Hi Tonio,
do you really expect a reply before going on with the rest of the article ?
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.
[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].
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.
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”‘
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.
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”
Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”
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.
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.
oh a simple example about the word “arbitrary”, it is a problem of double translation, the original text writes twice “to any extent”
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
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.
Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”
you are pathetic, Vekris. You should stop;
Vekris : the antero-posterior construction of animals is bullshit, the induction of limbs by genes is bullshit, the colinearity of hox genes is bullshit, the selection of tetrapods by evolution is bullshit, the duplication of genes between hindlimbs and forelimbs is bullshit
and you now know it, better than anyone else.
Well, no, I don’t know it and cteappv certainly don’t explain it and it’s not by not providing evidence that anybody could support such claims. And “anybody” includes physicists.
But that little burst is quite informative, isn’t it? Clarifying the authors position in the scientific landscape.
Now, a lot more people know what Vincent Fleury believes.
There is only one point of interest for me, as it is my main disagreement with Fleury:
the selection of tetrapods by evolution is bullshit
Quite clear, received 5/5, thank you Dr Fleury.
Now, he certainly misread my comment, but that’s not news. Let’s continue with the science of cteappv; maybe with a small stop before that 😉
He didn’t put that in his ‘paper’, did he?
It would be shorter and with less errors. There are _just_ five errors in that sentence.
you pretend that do not understand, how unfair : the tetrapod pattern is the hydrodynamic attractor of moving cells, after passing through a 4 blastomeres pattern.
The flow pattern is hyperbolic this is why the Antero-posterior construction of animals is caduque
The positioning and extension of limbs is by the flow not by a discrete inductive action
The colinearity of genes requires a 1D substrate, and the 1D substrate is provided by the hyperbolic flow, not by gene inductions
The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can write its essence without evolutionnary arguments.
The duplication of genes is a conceptual error : limbs form by splitting of the lateral plate, not by addition of limbs from one place to another.
S’il vous plaît Vekris. Arrêtez, vous vous couvrez de ridicule.
Vekris, you go too much down :
“Just avoid calling that science.” It is mathematics, Vekris. A sphere has an equation. The archetypic tetrapod also has an equation, that’s all. Everybody is happy with that. Youa re lmike Myers, you do not understand that there exist simple equations for forms, even for tetrapods. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss the matter calmly. apparently not with you.
about :
“If by good luck you don’t know such a mean individual, please, just ignore my request”
tI do not know anyone who is harrassing you. the people I know do not harrass anyone.
But if you are indeed harrassed, then please consider that this is what you have been doing to me for ages, despite all the messages of people asking you to stop. So you should stop.
oh about :
>please let us know if you have access to the >statistics, always interesting to know how a meme diffuses)
who cares about this? I never counted statistics on my website. m’en fous complètement.
>Pretending they represent reality implies that there is >evidence, which you do not provide, thus everybody >can’t be happy with that. You may be happy with that, I >don’t, for example.
will you explain me why you accept wrong articles by others, like wetzel, weijer etc., and do not accept correct ones by myself, it is really very odd.
but Vekris are you out of your mind??? Please go to my website to the page :
http://www.msc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~vincent/englishEnresume3.htm
and tell me who has the saddle point, and who has it not.
The generic vector field is hyperbolic : it is a one or nothing fact, either there is a hyperbolic point, or there is not. I have it, they don’t have it. I had it before it was observed, it was a logical consequence of the drawings in Callebaut’s paper, who has it wrong also.
So theory can indeed be ahead of experiments, as you should know, it happens sometimes.
The rest all flows by itself : if there is a hyperbolic flow, the animal construction cannot be antero-posterior etc.
So I am correct, they are wrong.
If you do not understand that, you need a brain examination urgently, and all your posts regarding this are and have been defamatory.
You really are pathetic.
so this is the end point you are in the bottom of the hole. Now you agree they have it all wrong, and my model was indeed a progress, and it still stands.
The antero-posterior organization is caduque, etc. etc. and you have managed to ruin Dr Myers reputation for good. How smart.
By the way “I can has L2/R2” is not a sentence
Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”
You are right, just five.
Do you mean “At last!”?
vf are discussing. 
n=3 are discussing. 
vf, 
Clarifying tetrapod embryogenesis, a biologist's reply 
vf 9:37 am on August 6, 2009 Permalink |
-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 9:51 am on August 6, 2009 Permalink |
faut arrêter tes saloperies mon Coco
vf 11:23 am on August 6, 2009 Permalink |
>>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.