Oops 090630

vincent fleury:

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.


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].

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Now, that’s a clarification!

At least!

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 😉

comments on comments

Short replies to almost a third of the comments posted to PZ’s “An ontogeny of toilet drain behavior”

Continue reading

Oops 090622

Nevertheless, when folds growth is prolonged by evolution, it is so in the direction of the existing fold. Stated otherwise, if the appearance of a fold corresponds to crossing of a generic biomechanical threshold for folding, one may expect that the fold is itself stable in an open set of parameters, such that, “conserving the scaffold”, as stated by Darwin, a fold may elongate or shorten during evolution. This is to say that the more or less elongated aspect of rays in fins is somewhat predictable, it suffices to push forward the pattern of fish bones in the rays. This is also true of other edge-like organs, such as ears, nostrils or lips, which are well known to be observed in nature with almost “arbitrary” lengths, a word often used by Darwin.

Continue reading

Oops by page


Continue reading