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 😉

28 Responses

  1. 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.

  2. […] Comments Oldcola on Now, that’s a clari…n=3 on Now, that’s a clari…Oops by page «… on Oops 090529Oops by […]

  3. 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.

    • Dr Fleury,
      Did I understand correctly that your very first comment here is to say that I’m lying?
      I pretend not understanding? Would you please stop applying exegetic techniques to what I clearly say? It would be very nice of you.

      You want to believe to the essence of the pattern of tetrapods in the platonician space of forms? Your right and I feel very comfortable with that. Just avoid calling that science.
      I wonder if your colleagues, physicists, are OK with that.

      When it comes to biology it is wise to keep it as much sciency as possible and the platonician space of forms doesn’t belong to the field, as far as I know.

      I suppose that you expected the discussion about your paper. I have promise you that it would be discussed ASAP. I found a few things smoothened compared to your previous statements and a few corrections of the proposed mechanisms compared with EPMAG, but your theory is still disconnected from reality.

      Almost every multicellular eucaryote goes through a four-cells developmental stage. Should they all be tetrapods?
      Or should we resemble pyramids if the cells at the four-cells stage are arranged as a tetrahedron? [that’s a human embryo at the end of the link, four-cells stage, tetrahedral disposition… an egyptian? 8) ]

      Just repeating your mantra will not make it become true and with your paper published it’s quite easy to show that don’t understand enough biology (in general) and developmental biology (in particular) to have a valid point of view in the field. Please, tell us, do you know the fields of expertise of the reviewers of the paper?
      Not only my opinion anymore and I hope to collect more then PZ Myers’ review, I’m almost certain that there are a few bugs in the paper I could miss. Hopefully an embryologist willing to give it a detailed review will do better. The problem will be to find one willing to do the job.

      And by the time I’ll finish my review I hope I’ll make it also clear that you do have some geometry problems to solve.

      Let me be as much ridiculous as possible pointing your insufficiencies in the scientific field you would like to radically change and please keep exposing clearly your positions, you make the job easier.

      I’m a little bit slow commenting your paper because I learned not to trust your assertions and check every single one of them. And I’m more and more ridiculous after every single Oops I discover.
      So, you have plenty of time to try to visualize those missing vortices (L2/R2) as you have access to a video-microscope, and maybe retract your paper, rewrite it to expel all the errors that populate it, review the conclusions you drive from incorrect inputs, submit it to a biologist’s opinion and resubmit it for publication.

      A last general comment. You should be thankful (or not?) for two things:

      – The international exposure of your theory across Pharyngula, which gave you the opportunity to clarify your position at the comments section and via the interview with Suzan Mazur. Hopefully that draw a lot of attention to your website and to EPJAP (please let us know if you have access to the statistics, always interesting to know how a meme diffuses). You can name me when you are asked who send it to PZ Myers, just avoid saying that it was to harass you; my aim is to show how lame you theory is. Nothing personal, except when you are injurious.

      – Our exchanges via dloale. My little game [Takeuchi et al. [59] was probably a pain in the ass and it gave you the opportunity to show your readiness to dismiss/question experimental data as soon as they don’t fit your model and produced the most surrealistic phrase in your paper (section 4.5, in preparation)

      And a request. If, by bad luck, there is at your social environment, friend or family, any retired university professors, with initials JB, living in the south of France, in a cute house, with plenty of time to harass me via the comments of my blogs and by e-mail, being injurious and threatening, take a few minutes to explain him that this is not the right way to interfere with a scientific debate, however hard it is.
      If by good luck you don’t know such a mean individual, please, just ignore my request.

  4. 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.

    • Mathematic models that don’t fit reality are nice constructions with which one can play.
      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.

  5. 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.

  6. >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.

    • Could that be because you clearly demonstrated your ignorance of biology?
      A tendency to false assertions?

      And that other scientists demonstrate (including experimentally) their points of view, which you haven’t done yet?

      You state that everybody else is wrong, you have the charge to demonstrate that. IMO (a shared one) you patently failed up to now and you don’t have a chance to do so.

  7. but Vekris are you out of your mind??? Please go to my website to the page :

    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.

  8. 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

  9. Comment erased for non observance of the blog’s rules: “the blog’s language is english ; comments in any other language will be discarded”

  10. […] Comments vincent fleury on Now, that’s a clari…vincent fleury on Now, that’s a clari…Oldcola on Now, that’s a clari…vf on Now, that’s a clari…vf on […]

  11. Do you mean “At last!”?

  12. […] doesn’t bother Fleury who prefers his model, coming out from the platonician space of forms, with the two invisibleimaginary vortices, instead of one quite […]

  13. […] That’s a minor point concerning your model and your claims that : The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can writ… […]

  14. […] en arrive à se baser sur des théories issues de l’ignorance du sujet traité et plutôt weird [et pleine de bullshit], […]

  15. […] qu’en ce qui concerne les tétrapodes il a également exprimé en ces termes : The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can writ… […]

  16. […] y a quelque temps, Vincent Fleury, en discutant avec Suzan Mazur, annonçait au monde entier qu’il n’engagerait pas PZ […]

  17. […] plus pour que Vincent Fleury se prononce […]

  18. […] prétexte que nou ssommes tous les deux athées. Pas plus que l’ignorance de Staune, ou la science de Fleury. Je ne vois pas non plus pourquoi je devrais respecter Abrassart quand il affiche un […]

  19. […] and The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can writ… […]

  20. […] is observing the world through the keyhole of his theory, nicely summarized here, and that may explain how he came to see the anatomy of the chorion as a dorsal fold (which de […]

  21. […] A new element comes to complete Fleury’s quest: The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can writ… […]

  22. […] ou l’autre lors des discussions; et gardons en tête le créationnisme particulier de Platon en lisant : The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: