Reader Comments
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
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeResponse 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.
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?
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.