Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact

Equivocation Fallacy using the Veracity of Atomic Theory and Germ Theory to somehow donate/offer some semblance of Truth to "The theory of biological evolution". It's mind-numbing.

Well they're all 'Theories', right?! (rotflol hysterically)

So let's evaluate each Individually based on their OWN MERIT/TENETS:

1. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

p.s. There is no Viable Scientific Theory of Gravity.


regards

 

[The Greater Fool]

Equivocation Fallacy using the Veracity of Atomic Theory and Germ Theory to somehow donate/offer some semblance of Truth to "The theory of biological evolution". It's mind-numbing.

Well they're all 'Theories', right?! (rotflol hysterically)

So let's evaluate each Individually based on their OWN MERIT/TENETS:

1. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

p.s. There is no Viable Scientific Theory of Gravity.


regards

And yet, there they (gravity and evolution) are.

 

[Perpetual Student]

And the beat goes on! Daniel's got nothing but the same old mantra about: What's the theory of evolution? What is a scientific theory, etc., etc., nothing but diversions and nonsense! He cannot refute the overwhelming evidence for the most confirmed theory in all of science. Confirmed through disparate and numerous scientific areas like geology, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, and the simple logic of natural selection.
And, in comparison, what is the evidence for his creation fairy? SQUAT!

 

[Daniel]

What is your position vis-a-vis Lenski?

Does Lenski have an actual Scientific Theory of evolution...? If so, go ahead..?


regards

 

[JeanTate]

And the beat goes on! Daniel's got nothing but the same old mantra about: What's the theory of evolution? What is a scientific theory, etc., etc., nothing but diversions and nonsense! He cannot refute the overwhelming evidence for the most confirmed theory in all of science. Confirmed through disparate and numerous scientific areas like geology, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, and the simple logic of natural selection.
And, in comparison, what is the evidence for his creation fairy? SQUAT!

Strange as it may seem, Daniel's "case" is weaker than that.

A central point, one he has made in dozens of posts, is that DNA is code, software, carries a message, etc.

Also, another central point is that the Scientific Method is rigorously defined, and includes hypotheses, experimental testing, dependent and independent variables, etc.

However, so far, Daniel has not presented any evidence showing the code/message/software aspects of DNA. Certainly nothing which is in line with his oft repeated minimal requirements re what constitutes science.

So far, he has not been challenged on this, and I doubt that he'll respond even if challenged. In fact, I'm pretty sure no one could present such evidence ... but I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[JeanTate]

Does Lenski have an actual Scientific Theory of evolution...? If so, go ahead..?


regards

Can you show that DNA contains/is code/a message?

In a way that is fully consistent with all you've written about the Scientific Method, etc? If so, go ahead ...

 

[Daniel]

And the beat goes on! Daniel's got nothing but the same old mantra about: What's the theory of evolution? What is a scientific theory, etc., etc., nothing but diversions and nonsense!

The same ole mantra eh? Your appeal is tantamount to the Defense exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims, his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.

So "what is a Scientific Theory" and "what is the theory of evolution" are diversions regarding the theory of evolution? This is akin to claiming the Krebs Cycle is a 'nonsense' and a 'diversion' from the oxidative metabolism of glucose.

He cannot refute the overwhelming evidence for the most confirmed theory in all of science.

What "theory" might that be...?

Confirmed through disparate and numerous scientific areas like geology, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, and the simple logic of natural selection.

1. geology: isn't Science; doesn't/inherently can't follow The Scientific Method.
2. comparative anatomy: Assumption Based "Similarity = Ancestry"...invariably leads to Affirming The Consequent (Fallacy).
3. genetics: Errr, where'd you get Genes?
4. molecular biology: where'd you get Life?
5. embryology: Haeckel's Drawings ?? What's next, Piltdown Man?
6. Logic of Natural Selection: Please provide the syllogism that elucidates "Concepts" as Physical Mechanisms...?

And, in comparison, what is the evidence for his creation fairy? SQUAT!

Well...

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Laws of Physics/Chemistry.
3. Laws of Information.
4. Quantum Mechanics IN TOTO.
5. Law of Biogenesis.
6. Fine Tuning Parameters (Constants, ect).
7. Irreducible and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.
8. Law of Cause and Effect. (The sine qua non of "Science").
9. The Existence of: Truth, Knowledge, Logic, Information, Math, et al (All Immaterial).
10. Common Sense.

Other than those, not much.


regards

 

[Jodie]

Jodie, I admire the effort, and I think you've made good and reasonable points, but I think it should be obvious by now that discussion with Daniel is a wasted effort, even for the benefit of lurkers- anyone who can be convinced by Daniel's yammerings is already beyond reaching. When someone answers "I take it you're religious" with "nope, I'm a Christian," you know you're dealing with someone who has no problem at all re-defining even the most basic of terms so he can justify his position. Creationists are speshul people to begin with- Daniel is even more speshul than most. It's like the old saw says- there's no reasoning with people whose position isn't, by definition, a reasonable one.

Amen Brother! Hallelujah!

 

[Jodie]

Daniel, how is DNA like software or programming code?

 

[Perpetual Student]

1. geology: isn't Science; doesn't/inherently can't follow The Scientific Method.
2. comparative anatomy: Assumption Based "Similarity = Ancestry"...invariably leads to Affirming The Consequent (Fallacy).
3. genetics: Errr, where'd you get Genes?
4. molecular biology: where'd you get Life?
5. embryology: Haeckel's Drawings ?? What's next, Piltdown Man?
6. Logic of Natural Selection: Please provide the syllogism that elucidates "Concepts" as Physical Mechanisms...?

This is a nice manifestation of your ignorance of science and frozen dogma.

As for evidence of a creation fairy?

Well...

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Laws of Physics/Chemistry.
3. Laws of Information.
4. Quantum Mechanics IN TOTO.
5. Law of Biogenesis.
6. Fine Tuning Parameters (Constants, ect).
7. Irreducible and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.
8. Law of Cause and Effect. (The sine qua non of "Science").
9. The Existence of: Truth, Knowledge, Logic, Information, Math, et al (All Immaterial).
10. Common Sense.

Other than those, not much.

regards

All non sequiturs, but for one devoid of logic, c'est la vie.

 

[Daniel]

Amen Brother! Hallelujah!

Translation: I have no cogent rebuttal.

Daniel, how is DNA like software or programming code?

1. It's not "LIKE" Software/Information... it "IS" Software/Information. Software is Information. Just because the word "Software" is connotatively associated with Computers (we're not computers) doesn't render null or preclude it's DENOTATIVE Meaning...Information.

2. It was in the reply to the post you 'Dodged' with your offering of: "Amen Brother! Hallelujah!"

...

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {emphasis mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)." {emphasis mine}
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29



As posted roughly 25 times in this thread...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

There are NO Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and Amino Acid or Instruction. The Laws of Physics/Chemistry contain NO Symbolic Logic Functions.

DNA/RNA ect are merely "The Medium" that conveys the Message, The Ink and The Paper. It's not The Author of the Message.

"Nucleotides and their triplet-codon "block codes" represent each amino acid. Genes are informational messenger molecules specifically because codons function as semantic physical symbol vehicles. A codon "means" a certain amino acid. The instantiation of prescriptive information into biopolymers requires an arbitrary reassortment potential of these symbol vehicles in the linear sequence. This means that sequencing is dynamically inert. If the sequence were ordered by law-like constraint, the sequence would manifest monotonous redundancy of monomer occurrence. There would be little or no uncertainty at each decision node. Uncertainty (contingency: freedom from necessity) is required in a physical matrix for it to serve as a vehicle of descriptive or prescriptive information."
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29


regards

 

[ehcks]

Software uses a language and ruleset to create a system that performs a task.

DNA is a string of chemical bonds that, if it does perform a task, gets replicated; or if it fails to do so, dies.

DNA doesn't have a language. It doesn't have rules. It's not a system. It's not intended to do anything. It exists, and if it works, it continues to exist. It lives and dies under its own power. It's not created. It's not designed.

 

[Jodie]

Translation: I have no cogent rebuttal.




1. It's not "LIKE" Software/Information... it "IS" Software/Information. Software is Information. Just because the word "Software" is connotatively associated with Computers (we're not computers) doesn't render null or preclude it's DENOTATIVE Meaning...Information.

2. It was in the reply to the post you 'Dodged' with your offering of: "Amen Brother! Hallelujah!"

...

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {emphasis mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)." {emphasis mine}
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29



As posted roughly 25 times in this thread...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

There are NO Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and Amino Acid or Instruction. The Laws of Physics/Chemistry contain NO Symbolic Logic Functions.

DNA/RNA ect are merely "The Medium" that conveys the Message, The Ink and The Paper. It's not The Author of the Message.

"Nucleotides and their triplet-codon "block codes" represent each amino acid. Genes are informational messenger molecules specifically because codons function as semantic physical symbol vehicles. A codon "means" a certain amino acid. The instantiation of prescriptive information into biopolymers requires an arbitrary reassortment potential of these symbol vehicles in the linear sequence. This means that sequencing is dynamically inert. If the sequence were ordered by law-like constraint, the sequence would manifest monotonous redundancy of monomer occurrence. There would be little or no uncertainty at each decision node. Uncertainty (contingency: freedom from necessity) is required in a physical matrix for it to serve as a vehicle of descriptive or prescriptive information."
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29

I found some updated resources for what you're talking about although it makes no mention of a creator in these references.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1162%2Fbiot.2006.1.3.288

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v67/n5/full/pr201088a.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-circuit-in-every-cell/

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-dna-strands-nanobot-animal.html

Earlier you asked what change was, according to Kurt Lewin change is a process of unfreezing-change-freezing when discussing behavior and adaptation. There are many theories of change and if you believe in intelligent design then these change theories would also apply to that creator's behavior would it not?

http://qiroadmap.org/?wpfb_dl=12

DNA behaves the same way when it's exposed to diametrically opposed forces finally settling into a state of equilibrium until the next change agent comes along, which is what I understand evolution to be. I'm not getting why there is a disconnect between the theory of evolution and the concept of a creator, it doesn't seem to be contradictory to me.

 

[Perpetual Student]

From Daniel:

geology: isn't Science; doesn't/inherently can't follow The Scientific Method.

Daniel makes numerous and repeated unscientific assertions. He has done this so often that it has become clear that he does not understand the nature of science, its methods and its findings. The above is merely one example that I have chosen to examine further. Geology has been universally recognized as a science and has a rich and productive history. I have provided a few links and quotes to confirm this obvious statement.

(Briefly), the scientific method consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Is geology a science?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Geology-a-true-science

Geology gives insight into the history of the Earth by providing the primary evidence for plate tectonics, the evolutionary history of life, and past climates. Geology is important for mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation, evaluating water resources, understanding of natural hazards, the remediation of environmental problems, and for providing insights into past climate change. Geology also plays a role in geotechnical engineering and is a major academic discipline.

The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet, until the present day. Earth formed about 4.5 Ga (billion years) ago and there is evidence that life appeared within 0.5 billion years.[1] The similarities between all present-day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.[2] More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[3] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[4][5] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[6] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[7]

http://www.britannica.com/science/geology
Brian Frederick Windley
CONTRIBUTOR
Professor of Geology, University of Leicester, England. Author of The Evolving Continents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geology

I know that is extremely unlikely that Daniel will comprehend the above and it is not possible that he will in any way be moved. His dogma is frozen solid and unmovable. I have posted this for any interested readers.

 

[Nonpareil]

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Laws of Physics/Chemistry.

Not evidence for a creator, or against evolution.

3. Laws of Information.

Presumably, you are referring to these.

These are made up. They are not laws. They are complete nonsense authored by those with no understanding of information theory.

4. Quantum Mechanics IN TOTO.

Not evidence.

5. Law of Biogenesis.

Outdated. Originally posited by Pasteur as part of his work on germ theory, concerns the fact that bacteria do not just appear from thin air. Still technically true, but means nothing in the context of abiogenesis.

6. Fine Tuning Parameters (Constants, ect).

Not evidence, for a variety of reasons ranging from "even if it was entirely random so what" to "you have absolutely no idea whether or not it was even possible for those values to be any different", all the way to "obviously any life that exists observes a universe in which its existence is possible".

7. Irreducible and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.

These do not exist.

8. Law of Cause and Effect. (The sine qua non of "Science").
9. The Existence of: Truth, Knowledge, Logic, Information, Math, et al (All Immaterial).

Not evidence.

10. Common Sense.

Remarkably rare.

 

[Daniel]

I found some updated resources for what you're talking about although it makes no mention of a creator in these references.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1162%2Fbiot.2006.1.3.288

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v67/n5/full/pr201088a.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-circuit-in-every-cell/

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-dna-strands-nanobot-animal.html

1. What do you mean by "Updated"?

2. It makes no mention of a Creator?? So...? Is there any mention that there isn't a Creator?
It makes no mention of a Creator in my references either.

Earlier you asked what change was...

I didn't ask you what change was. I said "Change" is not a Mechanism.

DNA behaves the same way when it's exposed...

Begging the Question (Fallacy): where'd you get DNA??

...to diametrically opposed forces finally settling into a state of equilibrium until the next change agent comes along, which is what I understand evolution to be.

This isn't a Scientific Theory.

I'm not getting why there is a disconnect between the theory of evolution and the concept of a creator, it doesn't seem to be contradictory to me.

1. The disconnect is there is no Scientific Theory of evolution and there is a CREATOR.

2. The Philosophical "Just So" Story of evolution held by Realists/Materialists most assuredly holds that "The Cause" for the Universe and Us is Nature/Natural Law; As opposed to the Idealist/Christian who holds (with Literal 'Mountains of Scientific Evidence') that "The Cause" is The CREATOR.
They look Diametrically Opposed to me, you?


regards

 

[Nonpareil]

Begging the Question (Fallacy): where'd you get DNA??

That isn't what "begging the question" means.

1. The disconnect is there is no Scientific Theory of evolution and there is a CREATOR.

There is a theory of evolution. Trying to deny this doesn't make it any less true.

There is also no creator, but that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution.

2. The Philosophical "Just So" Story of evolution held by Realists/Materialists most assuredly holds that "The Cause" for the Universe and Us is Nature/Natural Law

Evolution is entirely separate from the question of whether or not a god exists. It is concerned only with the way that living organisms change over time.

This may conflict with certain specific ideas of creator deities, but not with the idea of a creator in general. If it happens to overturn your particular creation myth of choice, tough beans.

As opposed to the Idealist/Christian who holds (with Literal 'Mountains of Scientific Evidence') that "The Cause" is The CREATOR.

You continually assert that all of the evidence is on your side. Perhaps you should present some of it.

 

[Daniel]

Not evidence for a creator, or against evolution.

So "Na'ahh" is your rebuttal? Overwhelmingly Compelling! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

Presumably, you are referring to these.

No, this one: Information/Software/Code is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception.

These are made up. They are not laws. They are complete nonsense authored by those with no understanding of information theory.

So "Na'ahh" x 3 is your rebuttal? Overwhelmingly Compelling! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

Not evidence.

Outdated. Originally posited by Pasteur as part of his work on germ theory, concerns the fact that bacteria do not just appear from thin air. Still technically true, but means nothing in the context of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis- The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter. ---biology online
Spontaneous Generation -- The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.--- biology online

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are "Synonymous", clearly. Non-Living is Non-Living, whether it be rotting meat or a rock.

Not evidence, for a variety of reasons ranging from "even if it was entirely random so what" to "you have absolutely no idea whether or not it was even possible for those values to be any different"

Leonard Susskind; Professor Physics Stanford...

"Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident." .... "I think they [Physicists] were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by The Creationists---The Intelligent Designers."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the Politburo in Shangri-La.

...all the way to "obviously any life that exists observes a universe in which its existence is possible".

The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis - arguing a point that's irrelevant to the subject at hand.--dailykos

Ex. You're a reporter and you asked a sole survivor of a plane crash HOW/WHY is it that he was able to survive, and he answered: "Because, if I hadn't survived, you wouldn't have been able to ask me the question". This is a Fallacy, a Type of Red Herring...What he said is very true; however, he didn't answer the question: HOW/Why he survived?? ....not How/Why he is able to answer the question.

So How/Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned?? , NOT....How/Why you observe the Universe is Fine-Tuned?

These do not exist.

Not evidence.

So "Na'ahh" x 2 is your rebuttal? Overwhelmingly Compelling! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

Remarkably rare.

You're telling me.


regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

From Daniel

Leonard Susskind; Professor Physics Stanford...

"Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident." .... "I think they [Physicists] were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by The Creationists---The Intelligent Designers."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

Did you really think this little deception would work? Susskind is advocating his version of the mega-universe concept, not creation fairies.

 

[Nonpareil]

So "Na'ahh" is your rebuttal?

Given that you haven't actually presented an argument, yes.

If you wish a more detailed response, post something that merits one.

No, this one: Information/Software/Code is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception.

So essentially what I linked to, then.

That is not a law.

Abiogenesis- The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter. ---biology online
Spontaneous Generation -- The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.--- biology online

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are "Synonymous", clearly. Non-Living is Non-Living, whether it be rotting meat or a rock.

Re-read what I said. The term "spontaneous generation" is outdated and carries erroneous connotations having nothing to do with the modern theory of abiogenesis, such as "mice are generated by grain stores". Even your own source makes note of this, though you conveniently snipped that piece out.

The modern theory of abiogenesis has little to do with the idea of spontaneous generation, and the "law" of biogenesis is no longer considered one. In those contexts in which it is still applicable (regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life-forms, such as mice from grain stores or bacteria from rotting meat), there is no conflict between the two, as abiogenesis has no bearing on those ideas.

Leonard Susskind; Professor Physics Stanford...

"Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident." .... "I think they [Physicists] were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by The Creationists---The Intelligent Designers."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

A rule of thumb: if you are going to try and present a quote from a notable name, do not attempt to do it out of context, as you have done here. The posters on this forum have seen that enough times to know the game, and it is just a waste of everyone's time.

The above sound bite is only a small portion of an interview with Susskind (who is, by the way, an atheist) from the short documentary "Are We Real?". You can watch the entire thing here, and you will note that a solution to the problem is given just after the bit that you presented out of context: multiverse theory. Susskind himself says "we don't need a fine tuner" at 25:22.

Note that I am not personally arguing for multiverse theory here. I am not a theoretical physicist, and there are many different ideas as to why the universal constants are what they are. What there is not, however, is any evidence whatsoever that a fine-tuner is required.

The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis - arguing a point that's irrelevant to the subject at hand.--dailykos

Ex. You're a reporter and you asked a sole survivor of a plane crash HOW/WHY is it that he was able to survive, and he answered: "Because, if I hadn't survived, you wouldn't have been able to ask me the question". This is a Fallacy, a Type of Red Herring...What he said is very true; however, he didn't answer the question: HOW/Why he survived?? ....not How/Why he is able to answer the question.

So How/Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned?? , NOT....How/Why you observe the Universe is Fine-Tuned?

Sorry, no. That is another accusation of a fallacy that you got wrong. All the thing that you are responding to does is point out that a great many people commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in arguing for the existence of a fine-tuner. This is hardly irrelevant.