Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Response about the incorrected use of the word

Posted by Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 12:13 GMT

We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.

Competing interests declared: We are the authors of this paper.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

Head replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 12:46 GMT

Sorry, but I don't buy this excuse. As mentioned by others, it is not just the incorrect use of the word "creator". The whole context of the sentences is very clearly about creationism. The words "superior", "proper", "mystery" and "invention" are at least as disturbing and appalling as the word "Creator" (see the citations below). And if it is all just an incorrect use of a word (mentioned no less than 3 times in the paper) by a non-native speaker, why was it (plus the other appalling words) not picked up by the editor or one of the reviewers?
- "An important advantage that makes human hand superior to other animals"
- "proper design by the Creator"
- "the mystery of the Creator?s invention"

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

Mingjin replied to Head on 03 Mar 2016 at 13:01 GMT

The word Creator was only used three times in my paper. It has nothing to do with our study. It does not affect our results if changing the word Creator to NATURE. We apologize again for all these misunderstanding by our mistakes.

Competing interests declared: We are the authors of the paper.

RE: RE: RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

DanMadularu replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 16:29 GMT

Using the word "creator" three times in a scientific paper is three times too many. Your english seems perfect otherwise, as evidenced by sentences like: "Compared to the neurological functions, knowledge of the complex
biomechanical architecture is more crucial to understanding hand coordination because
mechanical functions can affect motor commands. In the human hand, a single muscle
does not always connect a single articular but rather has a unique connective architecture
between muscles and articulations, such as the interconnection of a multi-tendon muscle with
several articulations."
This is all on the editorial staff, who failed miserably in this particular case.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

tferrar replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 13:14 GMT

If you need professional language help with future manuscripts, please take a look at the following website: www.theeditorsite.com

No competing interests declared.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

fbeijamini replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 13:31 GMT

It is difficult to me to believe in this excuse knowing that the affiliation of one the authors is USA

(Le Xiong Foisie School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609?2280, United States of America).

Furthermore, have this paper been reviewed? If so, the reviewers also are responsible for such a terrible mistake.

No competing interests declared.

Replacing Creator by Nature is not the cure.

Beagle replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 13:59 GMT

Hello,

Changing the word ?Creator? into ?Nature? will not make your paper flawless. And this is not only about you anymore as your editor gave his warrant to PLoS one to publish your text as it appeared.

Even without the word ?Creator?, your text is problematic.
?Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator?s invention.? (Intro?s first paragraph)
You should consider replacing ?invention? too. Plus: since when is science performed to point at a mystery rather than bringing it into light, piece by piece? This is faith speaking. Wonders of nature are for our eyes, ie they are subjective, and your text is full of subjective claims. Select examples of hollow sentences can be found in a comment I posted this morning.

?We adopted the reverse research method, going from the result to the reason.? (Discussion)
How is that ?reverse?? What would be ?forward research method?? As you put it, it would go ?from the reason to the result?? which is fraud as I understand it. Besides, how many research methods do you think we can apply? The only research method that I know is called inferential: from controlled facts and context to interpretation. This supposed ?pluralism? reminded me that science is an opinion in the opinion of creationists.
Even though you claim having nothing to do with creationism, your paper in this form has.

Having sampled quite a few sentences in a few minutes, I have strong concerns about the editing process. I noticed that the editor is based in Ohio. I also noticed that creationists have been especially active over there. I hope that this is coincidental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www.cleveland.com/...

Finally, I daresay that style flaws are not typical of Intelligent Design products. Catchy titles once confined to reviews are now used for research papers themselves, and worse: biological objects are commonly endowed with intentions in the sentences describing how they evolve, meet or perform their functions, even in good papers. Using simple, truthful words as we describe our work is not only a personal choice: it is also a responsibility that we all should stand for.
Thank you for your attention.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

tkesteman replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 14:01 GMT

Dear Ming-Jin Liu,
You can change the word "Creator" by "nature" or "teapot" or "flying spaghetti monster" or whatever you want. This is not the problem. The problem with this article is that you try to explain facts with the unfalsifiable claim that a transcendent force is responsible for them. This idea is present throughout your article, and therefore it should be rejected.
Note that English is not my native language either and this is certainly not an excuse.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

jorge_ibannez replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 15:32 GMT

I find it shameful that you are trying to gamble other fellow scientists into believing that this was just a wording issue. Sorry, but scientist should try better than using empty rhetoric like bad politicians do. The problem with your text was a problem of ideas, and your ideas remain intact in the corrected that you propose. You have to refrain from the whole idea because we are not here discuss our faiths and religious beliefs. The posture towards evolution that you defend has been publicly acknowledged as being fundamentally anti-scientific, irrational and obscurantist.

If after this public debate you continue to relentless defend that someone (now NATURE, before, the CREATOR) designs living beings, the journal should immediately cancel this publication. This attitude of conscious deception should never be allowed in a scientific journal.

As others have commented, I am also non native English speaker and, contrary to your co-author, I have never lived or worked in a English-speaking country.

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

jorge_ibannez replied to jorge_ibannez on 03 Mar 2016 at 15:59 GMT

And please note that as a scientist I consider myself open to new ideas that contradict my premises. For example, I could be interested in a Lamarckist argument if you cared to provide evidence that plausibly indicated an influence of this kind. But what you did there is plain and simple evangelizing.

No competing interests declared.