Oh dear, how « beeeeep »

I do predicted that the quality of this blog will fall vertiginously, just after the decision to let VF comment freely.
Seems that you don’t need an exact mathematical model to do predictions that are verified, factually, in a relatively short time. All you need, is to know your man 😉

Following my post on EPMAG’s fig 6, Fleury, probably certainly unable to correctly discuss my objections, he offered the following responses:

“a) There is nothing connecting the “stream lines” of Fig 6B and 6C to cell movements, in the sense that the “stream lines” don’t represent cell trajectories but are rather calculated from cells trajectories.”

Oh dear, how “beeeeep”

“b) Even if the “stream lines” have a physical reality equivalent, and could be somehow connected to cells’ trajectories, the presumed L2/R2 don’t lie over the epiblast and can’t be connected with hind limb budding”

Oh dear, how “beeeeeeep”.

Great stuff! Thought that it was necessary to display it in first line. It would be a pity to lost it in the comments section.

Well, well, well. He did insisted, heavily, for me to show this figure as a demonstration of the missing vortices, L2/R2.

a) you don’t want to help by saying where exactly the four vortices are shown, [part of my remark]

the answer to that was clear enough:

“if you cannot even spot the four vortices in Fig 6 of the paper “An elasto plastic model of avian gastrulation” you have nothing to do in science and your pseudo review of my paper is just nothing”

if you do not understand that two dipoles head on generate 4 vortices, as shown in Fig 6 of that paper,

your brain is off

If your fingers are not, please put here the figure in question, I give you permission.

So I displayed fig 6. And discussed it.

It doesn’t show any vortice like cellular flow, it’s about hypothetical « stream lines » based on the assumption that tensile stresses could accumulate from cellular movements.

He is just confounding cause and result! And not any result.

An hypothetical, never shown to exist. Fuzzily compared to magnetic fields « stream lines ». Without any single bit, not even a tiny one, that there is a physical correspondence.

He pretends that the paper show the four vortices, while he wrote in the introduction of the paper that there is only two of them. Who he thinks he is abusing, other than himself? Quite weird behavior, isnt’ it?

And I do understand that two coaxial anti-parallel magnetic dipoles will form a magnetic field similar to the schema shown at fig6B. So what? I’m not discussing magnetism here. I’m not going to consider an hypothesis as a fact and accept a reversal of the causal chain to make Fleury happy.

To that comment, Fleury’s answer is: Oh dear, how “beeeeep”

He could admit that this was a huge mistake, perhaps maybe apologize, and go on with the discussion. OK, I’m kidding you, he can’t. Not his kind, that would be intelligent behavior and he seems to be afraid of. And I must say, I hope I would never be accustomed to so a nasty behavior as the one he is displaying since I started discussing with him almost ten months ago. And it’s a problem, as I tried several times to stop the discussion with him to avoid being exposed to it, but he seems to be eager to continue, not even able to do so at a different thread in fora or in his blog. What could be his problem?

And this isn’t the first time he mistakes, don’t apologize and change focus. Not the last neither I’m afraid.

Now, Fleury, I’ll put it in a more crude manner. If you can’t show us those fucking cells vortices, those supplementary to the two counter-rotating ones everybody else see since 1929 (at least), entirely, over the lateral plate mesoderm, where they are supposed to be according to your theory, no need to continue commenting on them; they just probably don’t exist. Enough fantasy about that. Come back to the subject only if you are able to display them. Some facts wouldn’t hurt us. Neither you.
I’m expecting a photo, not a dessin merdique*, with the two hypothesized vortices, full and clearly visible. What’s your problem producing such photos? You lack eggs? Ink? Vortices maybe? It should be easy, much easier, to take a few photos of those vortices, if they existed, than spend time talking about them. So, any discussion on the subject is closed ’till you provide evidence. A common correspondent put it that way: « I know of no area of biology in which purely theoretical hypotheses and models can be considered firm foundations for anything, until they have been validated experimentally. » No exception for you.

In the meantime, your theory is on standby, not only based in a proof free paper, a mere set of hypotheses, but also probably built on fantasy. Probably, but with a high probability, rapidly increasing as time passes and you are unable to show what you pretend to exist.
You may use your (and our) time in a much more productive way; go and try to explain us what the upper/dorsal ECM of your “sandwich” would be; exactly. Now, we know that you didn’t experimented your model, but maybe you could find some bibliographic references. The kind one can found in scientific literature with facts inside.
I’m not quite sure, but I think I read somewhere (maybe heard but where?), that the upper sheet would be the vitellin membrane, is that your guess? That would be great fun. At least for me, that is.

Let me make a new prediction: we are not ready to see those L2/R2 vortices and be able to correlate them or not with hind limb buds, much less relate them to hind limb buds, and the theory goes hindlimbless.

*dessins merdiques is how Fleury called his drawings of L2/R2 over Weijer’s lab videos of cell movements in the epiblast, drawings where the crypto-vortices made huge jumps, rearranging reality to fit the theory‘s requirements.


4 Réponses

  1. [snip by owner], keep on focus, I hate doing that.

    Everything you say is so low.
    Yes I did say that what you write deserves only
    -oh dear how « beeeep ».

  2. Asking for evidence by a scientist, fucking weird, isn’t it?

    Accepting modeling without questioning it from someone that done so much mistakes commenting on a simple model as JeanWalker without evidence would be foolish. That’s it.

  3. Maybe of interest…2 or 4 cell vortices here? lol

    Nature 449, 1049-1052 (25 October 2007) |
    The amniote primitive streak is defined by epithelial cell intercalation before gastrulation
    Octavian Voiculescu1, Federica Bertocchini1, Lewis Wolpert1, Ray E. Keller2 & Claudio D. Stern1

  4. Xenopus, welcome aboard.

    Well, that’s the paper I read a few days ago.

    As it goes, two vortices at the epiblast level as shown in fig 1a,b and supplementary movie 1, as the authors (also) describe in the text:

    Low magnification time-lapse movies of pre-primitive-streak-stage chick embryos, in which some epiblast cells have been labelled by electroporation of green fluorescent protein (GFP), confirm the ‘polonaise movements’ described long ago2, 3 (Fig. 1a, b, and Supplementary Movie 1). These are massive, bilaterally symmetrical movements of epiblast cells towards the posterior edge of the disc where the primitive streak will later arise, combined with anterior movement at the midline. Gastrulation then begins by formation of the streak. This arises as a short, broad local thickening of the epiblast, which quickly narrows and elongates towards the centre of the disc.

    (emphasis mine)

    Nice paper, showing pre-patterning of the PS which make it clear that the place is ready without any « cracking » involved.


Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :