I am surprised by the general tone and content of this post, clearly defamatory.
Clearly defamatory? One more word you will have to check in the dictionary.
The comment of Mr Davies is a general comment at large about theoretical papers.
Yes, and in private e-mail he said he understand the word « model » to be sufficient to not use « hypothesis » in the title. If you can get permission from him I’ll post here his saying, not as editor in chief of Organogenesis but as Prof Jame Davies’ saying.
My work is not a “hypothesis” without any experimental support, conceived out of the blue.
I don’t know what your work is Fleury, and I will not loose time trying to qualify it, other wll do probably better then I. I’m just discussing about your model/hypotheses. In the particular paper about which I exchanged with Jamie Davies, there is not the slightest connexion between presumptions and experimental data. Nada! Vacuum.
Especially the article which you discuss with Prof. Davies contains only two true hypothesis, namely
first : that the blastula is much wider than thick, a fact well established (the “sheets” of the blastula being about a hundred times wider than thick,).
The second hypothesis is that there exists a contraction area in the shape of a crescent or sickle. I, of course, did not invent out of nothing the existence of this. It is the well known Koller-Rauber sickle. These are the only hypothesis of the model, and they are based on wet biology, as you say.
Wrong! there is at least one more: that cells behave approximatively the same way. A quite disturbing approximation during a differentiation process where cells are well characterized by autonomous movements following morphogenic gradients other then the generic movements you consider to be the only ones driving the phenomenon.
Then, it follows from sound mathematics a number of consequences :
that the deformation field in the blastula should be of vortices, which are observed
that there should exist a flow oriented caudally, which is the case,
that the flow lines recirculate around a saddle point, which is observed
and that this point is the point of highest stress at right angles of the antero posterior axis, located where Koller Sickle intersects the AP axis. This suggests that the engulfment of the epiblast which starts there is induced by mechanical forces, not by chemicals.
Next, I did a number of other things, which are not in that paper, but which are also backed by experimental data (I have shown that many features such as blood vessels are aligned in the stretch field, etc.) most of which is published
I demand that you leave this message as a response to your defamatory claims.
If you don’t I shall take any legal step to enforce it.
You certainly do not have a right to hold a blog where such defamatory statements are left for good, and in which the only victim is not allowed to reply.
In addition, I demand that you cancel all links towards neocreationnists pages, in relation to my name. Otherwise I will have these cancelled by law.
Now, let’s see. Is this one a link between your name, Vincent Fleury and a neocreationist site? Or this one: Vincent Fleury. Please reply clearly in the comments.
You are not in a position to forbid to anyone to write books, especially considering that you do not yourself read the books in question.
Forbid writing books? Where have you read that I want to forbid to anyone to write books? Wrong interpretation one more time (hey, that was a quite nice idea to let your comments ou! I start appreciating it) What I repeat is that it’s lame to see people clamming theories which they hope scientific, in general public books, and in the mean time don’t be able to publish them in scientific journals. And that’s a quite weird behavior from scientists.