Why now ? He is writing a book and probably he will copy/paste his parable concerning the Plutonians (or maybe not).
His comment starts by:
Antoine Vekris# has failed completely to understand what was my goal in the development of my “Plutonian” story.
When I started discussing this paper I wanted to keep things soft. I learned a lot about Jean Staune, his technique of discussion (fr) and the use of logical illusions (fr) he (ab)use to try to make his point. And that he probably use public discussion spaces (fr) to learn how to present his points of view.
So let’s make it tougher for Jean to make his point by avoiding to provide hints until his book is printed. The Plutonians’ parable is used to make a point:
In conclusion, it seems clear that there is a deep analogy between my Plutonian story and the debate around the mechanism of evolution on Earth, and that Vekris failed completely to understand it[…]
OK then, let’s admit that I’m unable to understand tortured parables. Why not address the evolution problem directly? It would be much more concise and clear, not only for me but for any reader.
There are a few interesting things here:
If ADM‘s explanations are to be used to prove anything, she (or somebody else) must reply to my observation that simple darwinian models can account for directional, non-continuous phenotypic variations; before that, and in respect of the parsimony principle no need to introduce hypothetical and not well documented models, say « harmonic attractors ».
If the « anthropic principle » is to be used as an argument in the discussion, it must be clearly stated that this is an hypothesis without any proof to support it, and it can’t be use to prove anything. And I would like to add that this is an a priori 😉
If points of view of known biologists (say Grassé) are to be used to support non-darwinian points of view, Jean Staune should specifically state the exact point where darwinism fails, not just ask for an explanation. He can use any help he need as he isn’t trained in evolutionary biology and he fails to understand simple models, as the one I presented concerning ADM of the one that it explains the observations about the Kallima butterflies (I keep it as a draft to publish after his book is printed).
Let’s keep the discussion in english. As soon as Jean starts answering this post with scientific rigor I’ll advertise it at Science blogs, The Panda’s Thumb, Uncommon Descent and other places around the Net, as much as possible, in order to show them how brilliant the guy can be.