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 12:10 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

david_marjanovic replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 23:55 GMT

Why express something utterly trivial? How are the origins of the human hand at all relevant to your study in the first place?

No competing interests declared.

RE: Response about the incorrected use of the word

burkayozturk9 replied to Mingjin on 04 Mar 2016 at 00:47 GMT

We would take this defense seriously if it were the only creationist phrase in the article. But it isn't. You also talk about hand coordination as evidence of "the mystery of the Creator?s invention." What mystery is that? Is there a mystery how evolution by natural selection could produce the coordination in question?

Please stop treating your audience as idiots, and admit that you tried (and alas succeeded in) passing religious superstition as science.

No competing interests declared.