This is titled "Best Writing Forum."

To write well, you certainly have to think
  well.

This is not the Giggly Kids Forum.
Analyze.  Do some research.  Teach.  Then write majestically, rather than waste your time changing a letter or a word someone else done wroted.

Or, you could take your pretentious prose and pompous attitude where they might be better appreciated.  You're impressing no one here.

You are in the section called Word Play and complaining about playing with words.

So far you've posted two copy and paste things and a few word games things. If you would like to talk about serious writing you could post some of your own not AI generated prose into one of the sections asking for feedback and critique. Maybe some of the actually, really published people could give you some insight.

The Internet knows things.
https://evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=917403&mlist=on&mbrid=12399

This happens eventually on every writers' circle/forum/real world writing class/group.

Someone comes in from outside, possibly with the best of intentions, decides he/she knows what is best, has a wonderful idea of what the organisation should be instead of what it has evolved into over time.

Change isn't always right.

I see no manacles or locks.  If you're not happy here, then you're perfectly at liberty to leave.    As a moderator I could just kick you out and remove you from our list.

There is no need for discussion.

Gyppo

Quote from: Jo Bannister on December 31, 2025, 08:20:01 AMOr, you could take your pretentious prose and pompous attitude where they might be better appreciated.  You're impressing no one here.

My intention was to make a valid point, to teach.  Alas I have failed, for you already know everything.
You're a "HERO".

Quote from: Gyppo on December 31, 2025, 09:38:06 PMThis happens eventually on every writers' circle/forum/real world writing class/group.

Someone comes in from outside, possibly with the best of intentions, decides he/she knows what is best, has a wonderful idea of what the organisation should be instead of what it has evolved into over time.

Change isn't always right.

I see no manacles or locks.  If you're not happy here, then you're perfectly at liberty to leave.    As a moderator I could just kick you out and remove you from our list.

There is no need for discussion.

Gyppo

Indeed, discussion is something alien to writers, n'est-ce pas?  Kicking me out would be the cowardly solution, would it not?  Why write or discuss when you can simply kill them.

Expedient rather than cowardly, my friend ;-)

Discourse for the sake of discourse is wasted breath/electrons/whatever.

Quote from: Gyppo on December 31, 2025, 11:47:38 PMExpedient rather than cowardly, my friend ;-)

Discourse for the sake of discourse is wasted breath/electrons/whatever.

Wasted breath precisely describes giggling with words, or "discourse" on the 1972 song about dysfunctional intercourse, by the Gyppo.

The following written scientific analysis is enlightening and runs contrary to what is taught across America, indeed the entire world.

________________________________________________________________


The oldest and biggest error in all of science is Darwinian evolution, insistently claimed as "fact, fact, fact."  "Proven."
Repeating the same error loudly, insistently, authoritatively, does not make it so.  The most compelling scientific evidence against Neo-Darwinism (and there is surely a very great deal) is the Insuperable Statistics of Original Polypeptide Synthesis.
 
Once the organic machine gets going, yes we can all see adaptation, i.e. "change in allele frequency." That is assuredly not the same as all extant life originating from the Last Universal Common Ancestor, as biologists teach everywhere.  Here is why.
 
Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. [Omin]

The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting" 1 out of 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 38,138 times, or 1/20 to the 38,138th power or 10 to the -49,618.  The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints.  Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute.  They get a great deal worse, in fact.
 
Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 10to the -49,618  has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 10 to the -11,480.  One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power.  The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.)
 
Titin is one of at least 20,000 different polypeptides in humans. [NCBI]   

These general calculations apply to each of them regarding any naturalistic synthesis, using of course the appropriate power.

[Omin] - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\
NCBI.- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

 
If the "sections" were taken from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate advantageous Darwinian "selections" for each intermediary, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10 to the -40 threshold Richard  Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."
In fact, to avoid Dawkins' impossible hurdle of 10to the -40, you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a sequence of only 21 amino acid residues,  calculating chirality and peptide bonding.

TRH, or thyroid reducing hormone, is the smallest protein in the human body at 243 amino acids in length.  Even this is statistically insuperable by any naturalistic mechanism.


In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that "events with a sufficiently small probability never occur" (Institute of Mathematical Statistics).  Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power, or 10 to the -50 .  *

Let's look at the volume of 10to the 50 marbles, one centimeter in diameter.

There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer = 10 to the 5 marbles per km .

However, when equally sized spheres are stacked, they drop into the valley of three other spheres, which reduces their volume to 74% of a cube with side equal to marble diameter.

Therefore, the volume of 10 to the 5 marbles cubed equals  (.74 km) cubed = .405 cubic kilometer per 10 to the 15 marbles

 10 to the 50 marbles have 10 to the 35 times the volume of 10 to the 15 marbles = .405 x 10 to the 35 cubic kilometers.

The volume of earth is 108.3 x 10 to the 10 cubic kilometers. **



4.05 x 10 to the 34 cubic km divided by 1.083 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometers/earth = 3.74 x 10 to the 24 volumes the size of earth.

  Therefore 10 to the 50 marbles would fill 37,400 billion billion earth-size spheres full to search and find the unique marble on your first and only try. Personally, I would call it impossible to find that unique marble in just one earth-sized sphere full of them.

* https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

** https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html



This is 37,400 billion billion earth sized spheres filled with marbles, with only one chance to pick the special unique marble on the first and only try.  This is the definition of "one chance in..."  No probability is ever shown as an infinite number of chances.

* https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

** https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Quote from: Spell Chick on December 31, 2025, 02:27:10 PMYou are in the section called Word Play and complaining about playing with words.

So far you've posted two copy and paste things and a few word games things. If you would like to talk about serious writing you could post some of your own not AI generated prose into one of the sections asking for feedback and critique. Maybe some of the actually, really published people could give you some insight.

The Internet knows things.
https://evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=917403&mlist=on&mbrid=12399

Did it ever occur to you that I wrote what you so smugly suggest is "AI generated prose"?  I have seen nothing written on Giggle Forums to remotely suggest anyone here has the science background with which to critique me.

I wish you well. May you find contentment in the new year.

DAMN!
Heated argument