It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epic failure in peer review? PLOS One scientific journal cites a creator. Scientists say OMG

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Found it....

www.sciencealert.com

So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.


Good find.

I was preparing my hand for a solid facepalming after reading the article in the OP. That's a pretty hilarious mis-translation




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.


I don't need to design a test.
Why?
Because there are already tests out there that prove that the human hand has evolved over time.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.


Found it....

www.sciencealert.com


From the authors' perspective, they say it's simply a case of English not being their first language, as lead author Ming-Jin Liu explained in the paper's comments section:

"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 realised 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."


So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.


See, a storm in a teacup!



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Found it....

www.sciencealert.com

So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.


Good find.

I was preparing my hand for a solid facepalming after reading the article in the OP. That's a pretty hilarious mis-translation


Yeah, I know lol.

But if you think about the word creator and nature you can see where a translation error could occur.

And contrary to some peoples belief, it is actually a GOOD thing this is out in the public and not just swept under the rug. Shows that humans, even scientific minded, can make mistakes.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.


Found it....

www.sciencealert.com


From the authors' perspective, they say it's simply a case of English not being their first language, as lead author Ming-Jin Liu explained in the paper's comments section:

"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 realised 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."


So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.


See, a storm in a teacup!


How is a translation error a "storm in a teacup"?

I lived in Finland for 6 years (I'm British) and had to learn the language. Calling something a creator instead of nature is a small error compared to some of the ones I did.

Also, the paper can be rectified in an hour to change creator to nature. Then they just have to get it reviewed and published again. Not as end of the world as some people think.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.


I don't need to design a test.
Why?
Because there are already tests out there that prove that the human hand has evolved over time.


Who are these biologists who tested & observed something that happened over a three million years ago?

You really need to revise your understanding of scientific method and then consider if your assumptions are actually science.

edit on 5/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.


I don't need to design a test.
Why?
Because there are already tests out there that prove that the human hand has evolved over time.


Who are these biologists who tested & observed something that happened over a three million years ago?


Seriously?!

It's a pretty easy google search. You should use it sometime.

Also, you know that paper with the word creator in it? That'll be republished in roughly 2-3 months with the word nature. You want some names?

Ming-Jin Liu
Cai-Hua Xiong
Le Xiong
Xiao-Lin Huang



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

edit on 051505/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: just not worth it



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
Nuts, that response should have been to EequalsMC2, allow me to redirect. Star for you.

a reply to: EequalsMC2
Since I screwed up the first time, this is for your:
Since you seem to be an expert, of what sort of quality is the article in question and the research covered in it beyond mention of this "Creator"? Paint me curious.

Apologies to the both of you for the confusion.

Site note - Creator is grossly defined as a person or thing that creates. Pick your poison whether that be an all-powerful deity or a self-/environmentally-driven process. Flairs of the author(s) aside, this seems to me once again to be much ado about nothing. If the research is sound, should we really care all that much about what process (or even perhaps entity) "created" the item and mechanics at hand (no pun intended)? Is the information presented called into question otherwise beyond mention of the "Creator"? If so, reject it. If not...eh.

Just my thoughts. Thanks in advance for enlightenment otherwise. I can appreciate the scientific need for accuracy. I can't appreciate a need to reject otherwise valid input for the mere sake of stuffiness. Cheers.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Praetorius

That's ok.

I tend to reply to questions directed at me



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I can't see anywhere where it says that it was peer reviewed.

Also, a paper doesn't HAVE to be peer reviewed to be published.



They said their internal review "revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work." The journal has retracted the article.


From the article.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.


I don't need to design a test.
Why?
Because there are already tests out there that prove that the human hand has evolved over time.

You really need to revise your understanding of scientific method and then consider if your assumptions are actually science.


Why?
Because you said it's wrong?
What's the alternative to evolution?
Do you have any proof to back up the alternative?
Can everyone go out and do the same tests and get the same results?


Alternatives to the modern evolutionary synthesis:
- Panspermia.
- Saltation.
- Catastrophism.
- Epigenetics.
- Punctuated equilibrium.
- Ancient aliens / genetic engineering.
- Things were created by God in their present forms.
- Things are being dynamically modified by God / Progressive creationism.
- Myriad instances of Chemical Abiogenesis.
- Theistic evolution.
- Morphic resonance.
- Cosmic ancestry (life has always existed and Earth has been colonized by life).
- Even the Scientologists have alternate ideas as to how it all happened.

Admitedly, most of the above are a bit way out, but any or all of them could be factors in observed biodiversity. Some of them are scientific theories exactly as testable as evolution, some aren't.

The fact that you seem to think that there are no alternatives or challenges to evolution does not indicate a particularly broad view.

Also, at no stage did I say that evolution was wrong, that assumption probably arises from your limiting division of the world into only two opposing philosophies.

edit on 5/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.


Found it....

www.sciencealert.com


From the authors' perspective, they say it's simply a case of English not being their first language, as lead author Ming-Jin Liu explained in the paper's comments section:

"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 realised 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."


So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.


A reasonable explanation. Case closed here.




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
No no no, it wasn't just about a word, the research is obviously flawed because of the supposed personal views of the researchers! Right! Right!...right?

That's why we're having this big discussion, isn't it...?



And I hadn't even seen the clarification. Once again, much ado about nothing and totatlly missing the point. Ahh, ever the ATS...

Jesus, what the hell would have happened with physics and mathematics if this overly-dogmatic view of "science" had been around during the times of al-Khwārizmī, Newton and so many others...



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

edit on 050905/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: i concede in the name of Almighty Deficatous the Savior of Man



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What gives, man? You'd usually be taking evolution as a given. Panspermia, saltation, catastrophism, epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium are riffing on the same principles as evolution right? I mean panspermia relates the idea of life being delivered from space and still relies on evolution to create the diversity we see around this planet.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.


I don't need to design a test.
Why?
Because there are already tests out there that prove that the human hand has evolved over time.

You really need to revise your understanding of scientific method and then consider if your assumptions are actually science.


Why?
Because you said it's wrong?
What's the alternative to evolution?
Do you have any proof to back up the alternative?
Can everyone go out and do the same tests and get the same results?


Alternatives to the modern evolutionary synthesis:
- Panspermia.
- Saltation.
- Catastrophism.
- Epigenetics.
- Punctuated equilibrium.
- Ancient aliens / genetic engineering.
- Things were created by God in their present forms.
- Things are being dynamically modified by God / Progressive creationism.
- Myriad instances of Chemical Abiogenesis.
- Theistic evolution.
- Morphic resonance.
- Cosmic ancestry (life has always existed and Earth has been colonized by life).
- Even the Scientologists have alternate ideas as to how it all happened.

Admitedly, most of the above are a bit way out, but any or all of them could be factors in observed biodiversity. Some of them are scientific theories exactly as testable as evolution, some aren't.

The fact that you seem to think that there are no alternatives or challenges to evolution does not indicate a particularly broad view.


I never said there weren't any alternatives. I asked for alternatives with proof. I'm just going to work down your list, ok?


- Panspermia.

About creation of life


- Saltation.

About creation of life


- Catastrophism.

About creation of life


- Epigenetics.

I have heard of it, but haven't researched into it yet


- Punctuated equilibrium.

I'll admit I had to actually google that one. Seems interesting


- Ancient aliens / genetic engineering.

No proof


- Things were created by God in their present forms.

No proof


- Things are being dynamically modified by God / Progressive creationism.

No proof


- Myriad instances of Chemical Abiogenesis.

About creation of life


- Theistic evolution.

It's just views with no proof


- Morphic resonance.

I've read about as much as I could take on this one


- Cosmic ancestry (life has always existed and Earth has been colonized by life).

No proof


- Even the Scientologists have alternate ideas as to how it all happened.

Ideas, but no proof



So, out of all of them there are...
4 about the creation of life (evolution is about what happens after life appears so they are irrelevant)
7 with absolutely no proof and are pure speculation
2 that could hold some water, but I don't know enough about them to come to any conclusion yet.


Panspermia is about distribution of existing life, not the creation of life. It affects biodiversity. We now have much evidence of microbes embedded in meteorites. We also have indications of amino acids existing in deep space (from spectroscopy) and indications that there are microbes extremely high in the atmosphere (almost in space) and that they appear to have rained down from space.

Saltation. This is the idea that life made incredibly rapid changes, almost instant. Often theorized to be due to massive changes in environment. Like the changes that wiped out the dinosaurs allowing for the rise of mammals. It is not about the creation of life.

Catastrophism suggests that life had to change or die after environments were rapidly changed (like massive worldwide volcanic eruptions causing a shift in gas balance of the atmosphere). There have been a few events in the history of the planet where life only barely survived, leaving remnants of life adapted to the old conditions as well as existing successful species. It is not about the creation of life.

Epigenetics is the new genetic science studying genes that can get switched on or off by environmental forces. these genes, once triggered can be inherited. There is a lot of new science of genes that can lay dormant and then be expressed by a trigger.

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that explains the way genetic change can be suppressed for long periods and then be expressed in populations very suddenly. It is proven out again and again in that observed genetic change appears to come in jumps, not the smooth progression that evolution theorizes.

We have been genetically engineering life for years. There is ample, in lab, repeatable, proof of genetic engineering. As for ancient aliens, complete woo woo, in my opinion but actually possible in a big universe billions of years old.

Progressive Creationism would look identical to evolution. If we have proof of evolution, it could actually be proof of Progressive Creationism. Of course, if we have no proof of Progressive Creationism, we also would have no proof of evolution. Works both ways.


edit on 5/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I edited out my reply because I realised I was wrong.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

continued...

Chemical Abiogenesis has never been done fully complete in the lab, but we have gotten results leading to amino acids and protein solutions within cell walls and simple cell like mechanisms. Evolutionists assume a single phylogenic tree with a single DNA code. Currently, there are 24 different DNA encodings, indicating (as Paul Venter, a leading genetic scientist, put it) multiple phylogenic bushes. This indicates diversity not by modification of existing life (evolution), but diversity by multiplicity of individual starts to different life's.

Theistic evolution describes a creation by God and an evolution as a process of biodiversity.

Morphic Resonance, Cosmic Ancestry and Scientology are (in my opinion) all woo woo but included for completeness.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Starred you for your honesty.




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join