Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Why should this posting be reviewed?
See also Guidelines for Comments and Corrections.
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.close
The Academic Editor of this paper, Renzhi Han, has been removed from the editorial board of PLOS ONE
Posted by Klaas_van_Dijk on 13 Mar 2016 at 09:17 GMT
This paper lists Renzhi Han (Ohio State University Medical Center, US) as Academic Editor. I am at this moment unable to locate his name at http://journals.plos.org/.... I have therefore concluded that Dr. Han has been removed from the editioral board of PLOS ONE. This is in my opinion a very good decision of publisher PLOS.
RE: The Academic Editor of this paper, Renzhi Han, has been removed from the editorial board of PLOS ONE
Kanbei85 replied to Klaas_van_Dijk on 14 Mar 2016 at 13:21 GMT
Yes? let there be no mistake that any discussion of a Creator is absolutely forbidden. We cannot allow a "Divine Foot" in the door! Censorship is the best way to keep Darwinism on top, of course; the evidence has an annoying habit of not conforming to Darwinian expectations. Thankfully the public is able to be kept in the dark about this largely due to efforts like these.
Could you please elaborate on your words: "the evidence has an annoying habit of not conforming to Darwinian expectations" ?
Expectations are hypotheses. When a hypothesis is proved wrong, only the hypothesis was wrong, not the theory that had inspired it. Consistent failure to prove any hypothesis of a theory indicates that the theory is useless, possibly because it is invalid. In my experience, the theory of natural selection offers a so far unbeated frame to look forward an explanation and find it. Refering to a Creator has never been something like necessary.
Now, the trouble with the "Creator" hypothesis is that it is beyond the reach of any controled experiment we may set-up. All that we have is the world as it is. Whether someone feels that the world is a miracle is beyond the scope of science. Such a feeling is better shared with another community. Pretending that some piece of the world, or that the whole system is a miracle is an opinion (i.e. personal theory) that cannot be proved wrong. Therefore it is not a scientific theory and does not belong to a scientific paper. But it has been written in books :-)
RE: Scientific editing (at last) not censorship
It's unnecessary for me to get into a protracted debate with you on this forum; the erroneous claims you've just made are already addressed and dealt with at creation.com. I'll list the links for your convenience:
"In my experience, the theory of natural selection offers..."
"Therefore it is not a scientific theory and does not belong to a scientific paper."
And I will direct you lastly to the article addressing this very incident:
RE: Scientific editing (at last) not censorship
TheMatrixDNA replied to Beagle on 17 Mar 2016 at 09:38 GMT
The article says that " It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has". Another paper about human hands evolution says that " " This evidence suggests that these derived fatures evolved prior to the intensification of stone tool-related hominin behaviors beginning around 2,5 million years."
And the final goal of the article is: " drawing a clear functional link between biomechanical architecture and hand coordination".
Now, my conclusion: " While everybody " not-creationist " was believing that the effort for building stone tools triggered the development of human hands, we found that the opposite is thru. The mechanisms of Darwinian theory of evolution ( which is not wrong, but it is not complete for explaining the real natural process of evolution), has not worked here. The final effect ( modern hands coordination) is not due prior actions of natural selection which are unknown. Of course, Darwinists will always saying that the cause was a random mutation like creationists will say that it was intervention of God. Neither Darwinists, nor creationist will supply the authors with the mechanism they need for building robotic hands.
The mechanisms of my own theory of evolution explains very well this link, its origins and development. I think that my theory can supply what the authors need. But, I was a lost man in Amazon jungle which has no PHD and can not apply the scientific method in my researches about natural phenomena, so, I developed another method, but, so, I can not send a paper for peer-review, so, the authors does not know this theoretical version of this mechanism. My hopes is that the research continues because the mechanism exists and one day the scientific method will meet it.
If a paper suggests that the unknown mechanisms was created by a magical creator, it is working as a science-stopper, at least for Western mindset ( not for Taoist Eastern mindset). But, if a paper suggests that the unknown mechanism was produced by Darwinian theory of evolution, it also is working as a Science-stopper because their method will never meet the solution ( my theoretical solution)..
So, I think that this paper need an advice from the authors that the creator was not defined in the paper, and it could be the human brain and its ancestors. The mystery is about what the ancestor` brain did and our modern brain does not remember. In another hands, I think that the retraction of the paper by believers in Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong if it is based upon the world view that emerges from this theory.