if you think that tendons and bones were a result of mutations and natural selections then
please explain how both evolved together to achieve such an amazing job.
Not necessary.
Do you feel a need to explain how a god did it? I'll bet not.
Let's return your question to you: If you think that tendons and bones were the result of divine creation, then please explain how a god exists in the first place, and how it acts on physical reality.
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance? It is basically any argument of the form that if A or B is true, and you can't demonstrate that A is true, then B is.
Are you familiar with the incredulity fallacy? It says basically that one just can't imagine how A could have happened - he just doesn't see it - therefore it didn't, and B must be the case instead.
How about the special pleading fallacy. It's the one where the arguer invokes a double standard with no apparent justification. The existence of tendons and bones seem too complex to arisen naturalistically, therefore there must be a god. When asked how something infinitely more complex like a god can exist undesigned and uncreated, the answer is that that's different and needs no answer - perhaps with the evasion that God always existed, which dodges the issue of how a god could exist at all.
Or that the naturalist needs to explain reality, but the supernaturalist doesn't. Why would that be the case? Why not both or neither? No reason is given. That's also special pleading.
Science is a work in progress. Scientists don't have all of the answers yet. If we could check back in a few centuries, when many of these questions will have been answered, we would probably still see religionists trying to promote their beliefs asking questions not yet answered then, still with no answers of their own, thinking that unanswered questions somehow point to gods.
They don't now, and they won't then.
