I got a request for a « right to reply » in the comments of the origin of loss of credibility. Guess who send the request: Vincent Fleury, not Stuart Pivar. Not much of a reply to the question I was asking:
Now, maybe Vincent Fleury have something to say to the editors of this journal. The vortices aren’t apparent there😀
In other words: will he write to Simon Mitton,
Astobiology’s (sorry for the confusion, there is a journal named just Astrobiology, my terming was confusing) the Journal of Astrobiology editor, to contest Pivar’s paper? After all, Fleury is known to write e-mails or posting letters. It seems that I’m not the only one to expect a confrontation of these two guys’ theories (I would prefer something more civilized😉 ). Or a collaboration to build some new unified theory. (that’s terrifying)
Instead, Fleury offered a link, to the announcement of one of his seminars, planned for tomorrow, september 30 at 11 AM at the library of the Hydrodynamics Laboratory, titled « Physics of embryogenesis and evolution » (Physique de l’embryogenèse et évolution). Hopefully (for Fleury, unfortunately in general) no embryologist or evo-devo around to discuss the matter.
But, more importantly, that doesn’t answer my question, does it? That doesn’t answer either previously asked questions that are hanging out there relative to his theory and some of his assertions.
If Fleury thinks that by advertising his lecture he is adding some credit to his theory he is wrong. As much credit as it had, probably, with the invited review in EPJ AS. But maybe the content will be informative: it was in one of his presentations that he admitted not having the data which would support this assertion.
Maybe there will be a Q&A session after the speech. In this case, people attending may be interested to seek clarifications about a few points contributing to support Fleury’s theory. I will suggest:
- In « Tracheal occlusion increases the rate of epithelial branching of embryonic mouse lung via the FGF10-FGFR2b-Sprouty2 pathway » (10.1016/j.mod.2007.10.013) pressure (no data available in the paper) is supposed to drive in vitro embryonic lung growth. OTOH, it was demonstrated that pressure is certainly not necessary to induce embryonic mouse lung growth in vitro: Role of oxygen and vascular development in epithelial branching morphogenesis of the developing mouse lung (10.1152/ajplung.00185.2004). In Fleury’s paper nothing was done to properly dissociate pressure and hypoxia effects.
- 2D/3D confusions are present in Fleury’s depiction of embryogenesis, which don’t really help clarify his point of view. One of those 2D/3D related questions is still open. Maybe Fleury don’t want to waste his time explaining to a biologist, but I’m sure his fellows at LADHYX will be able to understand it and I’ll seek advice if something is too harsh for me. Hope Blake Stacey will be able and willing to help me. After all he finds the subject funny and he certainly have the credentials I’m lacking in physics.
Certainly clarifications about:
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
The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can write its essence without evolutionnary arguments
should also be asked.
If you can do attend and ask questions, the comments will welcome any direct and on focus answers.
Looking forward for the seminar’s video, if any.