a must read

Timothée, Tom Toud and Enro collaborated to write a must read about Fleury’s case.

I left a somehow lengthy comment there and I think that this is a must read for whoever is interested by Fleury’s theory and case.

I’m the first one to be sad with the rip-off of Fleury’s website. At sept 11, replying at his lab manager I wrote:

Je vous assure que je ne vois aucune raison à ce que le sujet soit discuté en « conseil d’unité » et certainement pas à ce que le site soit fermé, et ce n’est là qu’un simple constat sans vouloir influencer votre conduite. La seule information que le contenu n’est pas endossé officiellement, par vous, en tant que directrice de l’unité, le CNRS, ou l’Université, suffit amplement pour que je ne commette pas une bévue en vous considérant comme solidaires de facto des positions de M. Fleury.

All I asked for is to know whether the content of the website was supported or not by the lab as such. Not even a disclaimer.

It is not only about the freedom of speech I support for anybody. It’s also about my broken links. It’s also about exposure and discussion.

I would have give up with the Fleury case and theory as early as january 2007. He continued the discussion even in thread that had nothing to do with him. The discussion about his theory, that’s it.

Well, I don’t think that there is any scientific theory, and I don’t think either that a physicist should use the word as a journalist. If a physicist claim a theory he must have thoroughly test his hypotheses, experimentally, and be able to produce results when results are asked. This isn’t the case with Fleury. So, the term theory is inadequate. Hypothesis would be the best one, theoretical model or model the one the editor in chief of Organogenesis accepted. I think it’s misleading, including for Fleury who thinks he can base in such an hypothetical construct a theory.

I asked repeatedly for a submission in a scientific journal, and indicated that pre-publication servers existed (even provided links).

On the other hand, I asked Fleury for evidence. You know, when you claim the presence of a physical object you must be able to prove it. In the particular case, a photo of the four vortices claimed to induce limbs in tetrapods. We got schemas, of « stream lines », we lack photos of cell vortices. All I got is a change of the subject (focusing on the saddle point). Two and a half years after the publication of his model he is is still unable to produce the major and probably easier proof of his sayings, a photo of the four vortices. So, one could use it to see if they are placed as he pretends to be able to induce limbs budding, as claimed.

But, videos of two vortices are available. Not four. I suspect he will have a quite hard time to find two supplementary ones. Much more harder to show they are placed over the lateral plate cells, part of the mesoderm, the mesoderm not existing yet at the stage the two vortices are observed (pre-PS formation)!

And also, the « sandwich » used as a starting point for his modelisation may not be quite a sandwich after all, not as described. But he didn’t replied simply by identifying what the upper « plate » would be.

There are a lot of loose end here. And no direct responses, yet. Not even for the fundamental pieces of the hypothesis.

I still insist that his website should be left as it was. To be able to show that.

5 Réponses

  1. Sir,

    there are so many things, duly scientific, which you do not understand :

    I never claimed that there were four full vortices, static and revolving for ever on the spot, you misread my papers. There are four domains of different vortices around a saddle point, which themselves move with time etc.. Either the blastula contains four vortices, or it contains two large and two small sections of vortices, depending on the position of the saddle point. Since the saddle point is very much « caudal » the two lower vortices are very much reduced; that is stated very clearly in my papers, I even explain that if there are only two, the animal will not have legs. All that is explicitely in my papers, which apparently you have not read.

    The question of the saddle point is exactly the same as the question of four vortices. If you do not understand that, I am sorry, but physicists will.

    I asked you several times to show this saddle point, it is so obvious, there exist beautiful experiments which show it.

    The question of cell vortices and stream lines is nonsensical.

    The question of the sandwhich, I think I replied but you did not want to publish my reply, as for so many others. The structure of the sandwich does not matter. The structure of the top plate has no importance, there may even be no top plate at all, the system may aswell be a simple mix of an extra cellular matrix and cells. What matters is the existence of a small dimension on z (across the blastula) across which the friction is larger (lubrication approximation) then the flow boils down to a Poiseuille flow (with different sorts of prefactors, arguably)

    If you do not understand that, I am sorry, but physicists will.

    It is really sad that my site (which was never a blog) was closed. You certainly are the cause of it. You remind me this joke about the guy who kills his mother and father, and then wants to be judged with sympathy considering that he is an orphan.

    I told you many times to stop all this.
    Opening websites to debunk somebody is not a good thing to do.

    You should stop. You are giving more and more evidence that you do not truly understand the fundamentals of physics, and this dispute with you is just pointless.

    I am sorry to learn that you are so much wound by the closing of my site. I am especially sad for your broken links, indeed, those links were probably the most interesting part of your site, and I am sad that your visitors will only have your garbage for reading.

  2. I never claimed that there were four full vortices, static and revolving for ever on the spot, you misread my papers. There are four domains of different vortices around a saddle point, which themselves move with time etc.. Either the blastula contains four vortices, or it contains two large and two small sections of vortices, depending on the position of the saddle point. Since the saddle point is very much “caudal” the two lower vortices are very much reduced; that is stated very clearly in my papers, I even explain that if there are only two, the animal will not have legs. All that is explicitely in my papers, which apparently you have not read.

    Never expected to see four equi-dimensioned vortices, just expect to see four of them. You do know that most people fail to see the two additional ones you claim.
    You said that the result of each vortex is the budding of a presumptive limb. There are four limbs, so four vortices are necessary. If there are just two of them your model fails to explain the formation of two limbs.

    The question of the saddle point is exactly the same as the question of four vortices. If you do not understand that, I am sorry, but physicists will.

    Is it so difficult to show those vortices? I do understand the existence of the saddle point but there are physical obstacles to the creation of the corresponding vortices. You didn’t replied when I asked to comment that.

    I asked you several times to show this saddle point, it is so obvious, there exist beautiful experiments which show it.

    And I replied that you can setup your blog to show that. What I want to see is the correspondence between vortices and limbs buds you claim. I don’t give a penny for the saddle point.

    The question of cell vortices and stream lines is nonsensical.

    Hey, that’s great. We do have an agreement her. It’s so rare that it’s worth a special post about it. I’ll give it the necessary time. It’s completely nonsensical, I fully agree, you connected « stream lines » and the cell vortices when I said that the « four vortices take » wasn’t mentioned in the EPMAG paper. Remember? I’ll get the links and make a post out of it. To get things straight.

    The question of the sandwhich, I think I replied but you did not want to publish my reply, as for so many others. The structure of the sandwich does not matter. The structure of the top plate has no importance, there may even be no top plate at all, the system may aswell be a simple mix of an extra cellular matrix and cells. What matters is the existence of a small dimension on z (across the blastula) across which the friction is larger (lubrication approximation) then the flow boils down to a Poiseuille flow (with different sorts of prefactors, arguably)
    If you do not understand that, I am sorry, but physicists will.

    You think wrong, you didn’t replied, I checked. Don’t play that fucking game of the martyr who’s comments are censured with me. I keep copies of all of them and I could just present them to a few persons just to show how you try to distort facts. You tried once with Jamie Davies saying and the result is displayed in this blog. Sniped out parts are irrelevant to the post where you posted them.
    So, that’s new: the structure of the « sandwich » doesn’t matter. So, there may not even be a « crack ». And no need of your model to explain primitive streak formation. Is that you are trying to tell us here? It will be nice of you to clarify.

    It is really sad that my site (which was never a blog) was closed. You certainly are the cause of it. You remind me this joke about the guy who kills his mother and father, and then wants to be judged with sympathy considering that he is an orphan.

    Now, once more, I can help you to set up every thing back online in your personal blog. It will take authorization from you, a few copy/paste I’ll do if you feel no enough confident with the blogs publishing interface, and then you kick me out of the blog and keep plain freedom.

    I told you many times to stop all this.
    Opening websites to debunk somebody is not a good thing to do.
    You should stop. You are giving more and more evidence that you do not truly understand the fundamentals of physics, and this dispute with you is just pointless.

    You do know quite well that I’m no interested to discuss with you about your theory. I challenged you (several times since january 2007) to just publish it in a scientific journal, and recently conceded that even a prepublication piece of work could be a starter.
    You do know, and people can check by themselves, that I gladly accepted to stop that discussion publicly on Sur-la-Toile. And you came defend your theory in a thread that had nothing to do about it. You are the one who didn’t stopped it.
    You pushed me to leave Sur-la-Toile where the moderation was too soft to just whip out irrelevant posts and comments from you. This blog’s initially was to keep trace of publications contradicting your ideological points of view about genes implication in development and evolution (evodevo). I didn’t even wanted to discuss your papers.
    The discussion on EPMAG started after the contact by Jamie Davies. He contacted me. I hadn’t even time to do so. It helped to set clear that this particular paper is considered as an hypothesis by someone else then me, the editor in chief of the journal that published it.
    Now, things changed as you insisted to discuss. I’m discussing. You don’t like it. Your problem. This is not about debunking somebody, but something. Your theory. And as I already told the only interest for me is that Jean Staune of the UIP used it to support his neocreationist views and you played the game. I think your theory will sink in oblivion without any discussion necessary on it, if not from people as Jean Staune.

    I am sorry to learn that you are so much wound by the closing of my site. I am especially sad for your broken links, indeed, those links were probably the most interesting part of your site, and I am sad that your visitors will only have your garbage for reading.

    Well, up to you to help improving the Web’s content by accepting my proposal. It’s the least I could offer to such a charming person as you.

  3. […] L2/R2, could they be nonsensical? Publié le octobre 27, 2007 par Oldcola As this is maybe a first point of agreement between Fleury and myself I promised to make of it a post. […]

  4. […] on the Net Publié le octobre 28, 2007 par Oldcola In “a must read” I pointed to a collective work by three french science bloggers discussing about the freedom […]

  5. […] Je l’ai relu, et mon verdict ne change pas. Tom, Enro, je crois qu’on a assuré. Même OldCola l’a dit : a must read! Oui, enfin n’exagérons rien, il l’a dit au début. Parce que ce soir […]

Laisser un commentaire

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 )

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 )

Photo Google+

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

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :