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

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TerryDon79

Starred you for your honesty.

I don't mind being wrong. It's the finding out the right after the wrong which counts.

a reply to: chr0naut
Clarification - punctuated equilibrium is a form of evolutionary theory espoused by Gould I believe, just in argument with gradualist/traditional evolutionary theory. Not an anti-evolution theory

I always enjoyed reading the evolutionists destroying their competing theories with conflicting evidence.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: chr0naut
Clarification - punctuated equilibrium is a form of evolutionary theory espoused by Gould I believe, just in argument with gradualist/traditional evolutionary theory. Not an anti-evolution theory

I always enjoyed reading the evolutionists destroying their competing theories with conflicting evidence.

Many of the alternate theories could be mechanisms of evolution. I was, of course being pedantic about the definition of what is, and what is not, evolution.

I was clear to describe the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which is probably the most up to date and universally accepted definition of evolutionary process, and which excludes these other alternates.

The world is a bigger more complex and more beautiful place than a simple and reductionist set of paradigms describes.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
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.

Yeah, I was being a bit pedantic but trying to indicate that the world is weirder that a simple bilateral: evolution = good, Creation = bad.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Kandinsky
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.

Yeah, I was being a bit pedantic but trying to indicate that the world is weirder that a simple bilateral: evolution = good, Creation = bad.

Just for the record, I never said creation was bad.
However, it was about 8am when I posted and I do get a bit snarky with not much sleep (no defense I know).

a reply to: chr0naut
Oh FINE.

Here's my professional summation: evolution's happening all the time (it's how all life got here over billions of years and occurs in ongoing fashion) except when it's not (great whites, crocodiles, etc.) or when it happens too fast for us to see (punctuated equilibrium)!

Perhaps oversimplified, but it is what it is. Versatile, at the least.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: chr0naut
Oh FINE.

Here's my professional summation: evolution's happening all the time (it's how all life got here over billions of years and occurs in ongoing fashion) except when it's not (great whites, crocodiles, etc.) or when it happens too fast for us to see (punctuated equilibrium)!

Perhaps oversimplified, but it is what it is. Versatile, at the least.

A view that accommodates much has to be more likely to be correct than one that will only accept one thing. It's simple attrition.

originally posted by: RustyNailer
God is more real than you could possibly imagine. In fact, you can tell him yourself that he's not real when you stand before him during your redemption. We all get to go back home, we are but just visitors here...

Which god? The one that "created" the hand, or a different one?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.

Translation error with the word nature??? So these scientists were able to use words like dexterity, biomechanics, digits, muscular-articular, taxonomy, etc etc without seemingly any issue with their meaning. Yet when it came to finding a way to articulate nature or evolution, they instead used "Creator"? And yes all instances are capitalized too. Why would they capitalize it? We don't ever capitalize nature do we?

The rest of this paper reads perfectly well, no indications of translation issues that I could tell.
Not to mention this paper was supposedly backed by the :

Funding: This work was partly supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, Grant No. 2011CB013301), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51335004).

They even use the word "Natural" right in the foundation's name!

Im calling BS, translation for BS

originally posted by: Praetorius
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...

Exactly. I'm gonna be blunt...I think it's pathetic for people to wait on the sidelines and shout SEE?? SCIENCE SCREWED UP! SEE??

Look at what science has brought to this world and try to realise there will be mistakes..that's how we learn.

If you guys who rejoice when science make mistakes are so anti...then give up you computer, the internet, coca cola, games, tv, medicine, brain scans, flying etc...

a reply to: EequalsMC2

Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.

Writes the man whose avatar depicts a well known scientist who is also a creationist.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

OK, lets step back and have a look at the Elephant in the room, shall we?

What, exactly is PLOS?

According to Wikipedia:

PLOS (for Public Library of Science) is a nonprofit open access scientific publishing project aimed at creating a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open content license. It launched its first journal, PLOS Biology, in October 2003 and publishes seven journals, as of October 2015. The organization is based in San Francisco, California, and has a European editorial office in Cambridge, England. The publications are primarily funded by payments from the authors.

Does anybody else see the red flag there? Hint: for the word 'authors' substitute the words 'NRA' or 'Koch Brothers' or 'Answers in Genesis' or any number of front organizations established for the purpose of pushing anti-scientific opinion and getting psuedo-science and charletanism accepted as actual science.

Should PLoS One Count as Peer Reviewd?

Bora Zivkovic’s job is to try to get people to comment on articles in PLoS ONE, the new online journal designed to get articles in front of the public quickly.

According to their journal information page, an important part of their peer review process is community review. Indeed, the journal only requires review by a single editor before publication. One commenter on Zivkovic’s blog post about the process suggests that this is an inadequate level of peer review:

My current view is that with PLoS ONE, if you have $1250, you have a published paper.[color]

OK, pay for play is NOT peer review.

One person reading a paper is NOT peer review.

Random anonymous internet 'community' commentary is NOT peer review.

In addition they seem to have been working to subvert the 'impact factor' rankings to their commercial advantage.

PLoS may accidentally produce a valuable service for some Scientists from time to time, but they are not doing themselves or their reputation any favors by cheating and stretching their definition of Peer Review beyond the breaking point.

No wonder they shot themselves in the foot with this so-called paper.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Many published scientists refer to "design of the universe" in journals, and media often. Even if they don't believe it was all created, they still use the term "design" VERY often..

A Freudian slip?

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'.

There are ways to study the hand and understand how it evolved. We have a fossil record as well as the ability to study yhe anatomy of other organism. Just like if I wanted to study the spinal cord I could observe how a notochord (its predecessor) operates in other lifeforms. There is already plenty of evidence from the fossil record showing a transition from being a quadraped to bipedalism, which would be the precursor due to freeing of the hands. Im sure there are several studies available to discuss the rise of himan hands.

Now one more point. Getting published is only one part of peer review process. Once the article is piblished it is open for further scrutiny. If it doesnt hold water, as is the case here, then it is shown to be inaccurate (or a poor translation in this case).

originally posted by: RustyNailer
God is more real than you could possibly imagine. In fact, you can tell him yourself that he's not real when you stand before him during your redemption. We all get to go back home, we are but just visitors here...

No matter how hard I pray, if I jump out of an airplane from 30k ft without a parachut, im not going to stick the landing and live to tell my kids about it...

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: RustyNailer
God is more real than you could possibly imagine. In fact, you can tell him yourself that he's not real when you stand before him during your redemption. We all get to go back home, we are but just visitors here...

No matter how hard I pray, if I jump out of an airplane from 30k ft without a parachut, im not going to stick the landing and live to tell my kids about it...

You can't put God to the test like that though. It isn't just disrespectful, it's also quite childish and foolish.

After you died from the above 30k foot fall, you would then realize your mistake, but then it could be too late. People need to learn these lessons "before" death for them to do any good.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

After you died from the above 30k foot fall, you would then realize your mistake, but then it could be too late.

No. You might realize it just before impact but not after.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: chr0naut
Clarification - punctuated equilibrium is a form of evolutionary theory espoused by Gould I believe, just in argument with gradualist/traditional evolutionary theory. Not an anti-evolution theory

I always enjoyed reading the evolutionists destroying their competing theories with conflicting evidence.

PE, as postulated by Gould and Eldredge, doesn't compete with MES, it is a part of it. It doesn't supersede gradualism at all, instead it states that sometimes there are other factors such as genetic bottleneck events(which are often associated with catastrophic events on Earth) that sometimes drive evolution more rapidly. It doesn't mean a Homo Sapiens Sapiens will give birth to some brand new species within the course of a generation or several generations as the case may be. It occurs on a more rapid scale than gradualism, 1000's or tens of thousands of years as opposed to hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

After you died from the above 30k foot fall, you would then realize your mistake, but then it could be too late.

No. You might realize it just before impact but not after.

I suppose you will need to die first to find out if you are correct. I say you are wrong. I have experienced ghosts first hand, and so have many other ATS members. The spirit world exists although not many know much about it, and what people all seem to agree on that have experienced it, is that it is CREEPY.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

A Freudian slip?

From the abstract:

Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.

From the discussion:

In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.

That's some slip...