Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Justatruthseeker]

That's good, you just keep up the good work and take no notice of the laughter, they are just jealous.

Oh, it's ok, I usually just ignore them. I understand that when one relies on Fairie Dust in science, one is left with nothing but personal attacks in an attempt to divert from an actual scientific discussion.

And for those who don't understand what that is, it is:

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory. Fairie Dust.

EDIT: Besides, who doesn't enjoy a good debate, or why else would we be here?

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, they always like to make claims that new genes were created in the past, when mutation has NEVER created a new gene EVER. It is simply turning off or on what already existed, or recombining what already existed.

You are correct, it is their creation mythology and their religion. Except the science does not agree with them as to how it occurred, since mutation can never create something new, only rearrange what already existed, or turn it on or off.

Just look at Lesnki's E.Coli experiment. This was lauded by evolutionists as one of the most impressive examples of neo-darwinian mechanisms in action. What happened? An already existing transcription factor (promoter) got shuffled next to an already existing gene for coding a citrate transporter protein. The bacteria could now digest citrate in aerobic environments, yet this change was only the access of preexisting genetic information.

Many other types of observed changes are due to phenotypic plasticity, which just means different environmental stresses triggered different phenotypic expressions, of which function already existed in the organism, only lying 'dormant' or temporarily unexpressed. Evolutionists will try and pass these types of changes off as the 'rapid evolution' of a new trait, and most of them don't know any better.

That's what evolutionists have a hard time grasping. Things change, but these changes are practically always based on preexisting function/information and do not give the slightest hint of being able to accumulate into fundamentally new biological structures over time. The kind of 'change' evolutionists believe in has always belonged in the Sci-Fi /Fantasy section of the library.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just look at Lesnki's E.Coli experiment. This was lauded by evolutionists as one of the most impressive examples of neo-darwinian mechanisms in action. What happened? An already existing transcription factor (promoter) got shuffled next to an already existing gene for coding a citrate transporter protein. The bacteria could now digest citrate in aerobic environments, yet this change was only the access of preexisting genetic information.

Quite, an already dormant set of genes, because although e-coli may not need to survive on citrus, it still does in the natural environment, showing it was already capable of doing so. All they did was turn on, bring to the fore, the genes needed to metabolize that citrus "fully". A food supply it normally does not need to metabolize in large quantities, so can only process it marginally.

Many other types of observed changes are due to phenotypic plasticity, which just means different environmental stresses triggered different phenotypic expressions, of which function already existed in the organism, only lying 'dormant' or temporarily unexpressed. Evolutionists will try and pass these types of changes off as the 'rapid evolution' of a new trait, and most of them don't know any better.

Agreed, what they refuse to admit to themselves, is that this is what they have seen in dogs and cats (created ourselves) over the last thousand years or so. A process they labeled as different breeds, and now refuse to apply that same set of rules to bacteria undergoing the same process. That variation within kinds occurs in not in doubt.

That's what evolutionists have a hard time grasping. Things change, but these changes are practically always based on preexisting function/information and do not give the slightest hint of being able to accumulate into fundamentally new biological structures over time. The kind of 'change' evolutionists believe in has always belonged in the Sci-Fi /Fantasy section of the library.

Yes, those mutations limited to what already exists, will never explain life from simple to more complex. But it will explain what we observe. A perfect genetic life-form from the start, varying within its kind due to genetic degradation or loss. Entropy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But it just so happens that the thing stuck in your craw works for the benefit of everyone even you and yours.
You just sit back and pray to your God and let science look after you, it doesn't care what you believe.

Oh I certainly believe in Romans 1:20;

I certainly believe that science will ultimately be His vindication when as they study the things made, His invisible qualities and power will be made manifest, so that they will be left without excuse.

It's not based on God's time frame, He gave us free will. It's based on ours, and our scientific advancement, which in the end will leave no excuses for denying the inevitable.

Our beliefs may diverge when it comes to what God is. I believe He is nothing but what we were made into the image of, and that is nothing physical. After all, what image can you make of Him? I believe He is pure "mind" - energy if you will, of which all things are from, and which is in all things. And so we will be remembered. For what are we if not that which makes our very thoughts and imaginations to even exist?

 

[USincognito]

What it comes down to is that evolutionists hold the pseudo-scientific faith that culled mutations will translate into mystical anatomy/bodyplan creating forces over millions of years and they can't be convinced otherwise. It's their creation story and they're sticking to it.

Nice straw man. Overly hyperbolic and not conducive to meaningful discourse, but magnificently crafted nonetheless.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, they always like to make claims that new genes were created in the past, when mutation has NEVER created a new gene EVER. It is simply turning off or on what already existed, or recombining what already existed.

Ad hoc fantasy. Real science says otherwise.
Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes

These mechanisms then also contributed to the formation of numerous novel chimeric gene structures. Detailed functional investigations uncovered different evolutionary pathways that led to the emergence of novel functions from these newly minted sequences and, with respect to animals, attributed a potentially important role to one specific tissue—the testis—in the process of gene birth. Remarkably, these studies also demonstrated that novel genes of the various types significantly impacted the evolution of cellular, physiological, morphological, behavioral, and reproductive phenotypic traits. Consequently, it is now firmly established that new genes have indeed been major contributors to the origin of adaptive evolutionary novelties.​

bold mine

 

[USincognito]

Someone has to present the actual facts, we sure can't rely on those claimed scientists to do so, since by their very own science they are simply turning on or off what already existed or rearranging what already existed.

So unless they are declaring that all genetic code once existed in the first life that came about (a perfect life-form), they have nothing but imagination and faith that it ever occurred, since it has never once been observed.

I really wish Creationists would learn more about the subject of evolution and specific areas of study like genetics instead of spouting off gibberish and nonsense.

 

[USincognito]

And then ignore what mutation really is:

Oh brother. A wall of stuff I already know as if it's a lecture. This should be good.

...Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely...

I noticed you dishonestly decided to not include this bit in the first paragraph.

Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.​

See that "observable characteristics".

Altering the product of a gene is just what I told you, turning off or on a gene already there.

No it's not. It's an alteration to the gene (mutation) that results in the gene producing a different product (like a protein) than it had previously.

This is not an auspicious start...

So it can occurr from switching on or off genes.

Simply untrue.
Mutation

Mutations are permanent changes in the DNA
-------
A small percentage of mutations may actually improve the function of the gene product or may convey a new or expanded function to that product. These mutations provide the "grist" for the evolutionary mill.​

Or by recombination of what already existed:

Recombination of parts of genes, not of genes themselves. And in that very section you again dishonestly exclude a sentence contradicting your claim.

Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions​

novel gene = new gene (not an expression of what "already existed")
new functions = gene with new function (not a function that already existed)

The problem is we understand less than 1% of the genome, with 95% of it still unexplored and not understood at all.

2001 Release: First Analysis of Human Genome

The draft sequence, which covers more than 90 percent of the human genome, represents the exact order of DNA's four chemical bases - commonly abbreviated as A, T, C and G - along the human chromosomes. This DNA text influences everything from eye color and height, to aging and disease.

The consortium's initial analysis of this text represents scientists' first global view of the human genomic landscape, with its extraordinary trove of information about human development, physiology, medicine and evolution.

The results reported in this week's Nature represent major progress for the human genome consortium. On June 26, the consortium announced that it had collected roughly 90 percent of the letters of the text for the "Book of Life." The consortium's new achievement represents a further compilation of these letters into the first draft of a readable text.​

Are we really supposed to take you seriously at this point?

 

[USincognito]

And before you go claiming you have created new alleles, let's put that to rest.

Can we say variation of what already existed?

No. We cannot. And you do realize that mutation is the source of the alternative forms of the genes, right? And that those mutations can result in changes to phenotype, right (well, you didn't earlier, but you should after reading the link I provided to you above)?

Can you argue the science without making personal attacks? Or is it just you have no real science to debate with, which leaves you with nothing but personal attacks?

I'll tell you what Jats, we'll let others weigh in on who has the better grasp of science - me or you.

I'm sure you'll be surprised at the results.

 

[Loudmouth]

An already existing transcription factor (promoter) got shuffled next to an already existing gene for coding a citrate transporter protein.

Homologous recombinations are still mutations, and it produce a new phenotype which was then selected for.

How is that not evolution?

Many other types of observed changes are due to phenotypic plasticity, which just means different environmental stresses triggered different phenotypic expressions, of which function already existed in the organism, only lying 'dormant' or temporarily unexpressed.

Nice try.

Phenotypic plasticity does not involve mutations. In the Lenski experiment, the new phenotype was due to mutations, not phenotypic plasticity.

It is simple and obvious misrepsentations of science like this one which demonstrate the dishonest nature of your arguments.

 

[Loudmouth]

What it comes down to is that evolutionists hold the pseudo-scientific faith that culled mutations will translate into mystical anatomy/bodyplan creating forces over millions of years and they can't be convinced otherwise. It's their creation story and they're sticking to it.

Why do humans and chimps have different anatomy?

 

[sfs]

Homologous recombinations are still mutations, and it produce a new phenotype which was then selected for.

How is that not evolution?

It wasn't actually the same gene, by the way; it was a copy of the gene. There were also subsequent mutations that enhanced the original advantage. Pretty much the standard evolutionary picture of new function, in fact.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ad hoc fantasy. Real science says otherwise.
Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes

These mechanisms then also contributed to the formation of numerous novel chimeric gene structures. Detailed functional investigations uncovered different evolutionary pathways that led to the emergence of novel functions from these newly minted sequences and, with respect to animals, attributed a potentially important role to one specific tissue—the testis—in the process of gene birth. Remarkably, these studies also demonstrated that novel genes of the various types significantly impacted the evolution of cellular, physiological, morphological, behavioral, and reproductive phenotypic traits. Consequently, it is now firmly established that new genes have indeed been major contributors to the origin of adaptive evolutionary novelties.​

bold mine

because you left out the telling part:

"and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences)."

bold mine


So it really wasn't from scratch was it, but from previously nonfunctional sequences, rearranged into new sequences that were functional.



What your evolutionist considers as new genes, we all really understand he means new sequences, i.e. variation from transcription. From that 95% evolutionists like to call junk DNA, until that non-functional genetic code decides to turn on through mutation, and suddenly it's not junk anymore, is it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So it really wasn't from scratch was it, but from previously nonfunctional sequences, rearranged into new sequences that were functional.

No step in evolution, from the very first life to us, was from scratch. Every step modified DNA from the previous generation.

What your evolutionist considers as new genes, we all really understand he means new sequences, i.e. variation from transcription. From that 95% evolutionists like to call junk DNA, until that non-functional genetic code decides to turn on through mutation, and suddenly it's not junk anymore, is it.

Yet another creationist who thinks that evolution of function from non-functional DNA is somehow evidence against the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

It wasn't actually the same gene, by the way; it was a copy of the gene. There were also subsequent mutations that enhanced the original advantage. Pretty much the standard evolutionary picture of new function, in fact.

Exactly.

The problem is that some posters here don't seem to understand the difference between changes in DNA sequence and phenotypic plasticity. They also seem to think that evolution requires every new species to arrive here from a fresh abiogenesis event, and create its own genome from scratch. They still don't understand this little thing called "heredity".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh brother. A wall of stuff I already know as if it's a lecture. This should be good.

"...Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely...Justa"

I noticed you dishonestly decided to not include this bit in the first paragraph.

Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.​

See that "observable characteristics".

Doesn't matter, if it's observable it's through the process described above, and if it's not it's through the process described above. All of which use pre-existing genetic material, whether you observe it or not.

No it's not. It's an alteration to the gene (mutation) that results in the gene producing a different product (like a protein) than it had previously.

This is not an auspicious start...

Doesn't matter. The gene itself that makes the proteins, already had that possibility to create that proteins from the start. Nothing new was added to the gene to allow it to produce anything. It is simply variation on what already existed.

So until you learn the difference between variation and evolution, there will never be a good start or finish. Variation exists, we see it all the time. We do not however ever observe species changing into species, until you misname them do to your "species problem"

We see instead variations or different "breeds" within the same kind. Or "race" when applied to man.

Simply untrue.
Mutation

Mutations are permanent changes in the DNA
-------
A small percentage of mutations may actually improve the function of the gene product or may convey a new or expanded function to that product. These mutations provide the "grist" for the evolutionary mill.​

​

Which occurs "from switching on or off genes."

Recombination of parts of genes, not of genes themselves. And in that very section you again dishonestly exclude a sentence contradicting your claim.

Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions​

novel gene = new gene (not an expression of what "already existed")
new functions = gene with new function (not a function that already existed)

All that was in there, you conviently want people to think I skipped it.

"Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements...

...Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely...

...One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial."

That you seem to think mutation occurs by some mythical means that doesn't involve variation of what "already existed," simply shows you have no understanding of the process involved.

Let's use one of your papers. The telling part you "conveniently" left out:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-38/#post66069692

""and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences)."

bold mine"

2001 Release: First Analysis of Human Genome

The draft sequence, which covers more than 90 percent of the human genome, represents the exact order of DNA's four chemical bases - commonly abbreviated as A, T, C and G - along the human chromosomes. This DNA text influences everything from eye color and height, to aging and disease.

The consortium's initial analysis of this text represents scientists' first global view of the human genomic landscape, with its extraordinary trove of information about human development, physiology, medicine and evolution.

The results reported in this week's Nature represent major progress for the human genome consortium. On June 26, the consortium announced that it had collected roughly 90 percent of the letters of the text for the "Book of Life." The consortium's new achievement represents a further compilation of these letters into the first draft of a readable text.​

Are we really supposed to take you seriously at this point?

Whooo, hoooo!!!!

We can tell you 90% is made up of A, T, C, and G; just don't ask us what 95% of it does is all.

That you know the letters, does not mean you know what their function is, or even if it has one. Give me a break with that strawman press release.


Noncoding DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,....

....Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", particularly in the lay press. However, it has been known for decadeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed that many noncoding sequences are functional. These include genes for functional RNA molecules (see above) and sequences such as origins of replication, centromeres, and telomeres.

Some sequences may have no biological function for the organism, such as endogenous retroviruses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, origins of DNA replication, centromeres, telomeres, scaffold attachment regions (SARs), genes for functional RNAs, and many others. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions. (This is inferred from high levels of sequence similarity seen in different species.)"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

See above:

Sandwalk: Sequenced genomes contain thousands of "unknown" genes

"Up to 40% of these protein-encoding genes are "unknown" in the sense that no function has been assigned to their protein products."

And today it has improved a little.

Explore Proteins with Unknown Function by the Use of Prestige Antibodies® | Sigma-Aldrich

And this is from the protein encoding which we have studied intensively. As I said, take your strawman press releases elsewhere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. We cannot. And you do realize that mutation is the source of the alternative forms of the genes, right? And that those mutations can result in changes to phenotype, right (well, you didn't earlier, but you should after reading the link I provided to you above)?



I'll tell you what Jats, we'll let others weigh in on who has the better grasp of science - me or you.

I'm sure you'll be surprised at the results.

Yes, I realized from your link quoted above that you left out the part where it occurred from previously existing material, what you believed to be non-functional DNA or "junk DNA", which ain't junk at all. Just waiting till it's needed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-38/#post66069692

That's what your above link really said when we boil it down to the basics and take out all the double-talk.

As a matter of fact, I think it's worth a repeat: ""and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences)."

bold mine"

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't matter, if it's observable it's through the process described above, and if it's not it's through the process described above. All of which use pre-existing genetic material, whether you observe it or not.

Yes, mutations change the DNA found in ancestors. That is how evolution works. How is this a problem?

Doesn't matter. The gene itself that makes the proteins, already had that possibility to create that proteins from the start. Nothing new was added to the gene to allow it to produce anything.

Yes, just like a basal ape had the possibility to evolve into a human.

So until you learn the difference between variation and evolution, . . .

If it was a variation, then every E. coli along the way would have been digesting citrate aerobically. A new gene sequence created by mutation is not an already existing variant.

We do not however ever observe species changing into species,

We do.

Cases of Speciation

We see instead variations or different "breeds" within the same kind. Or "race" when applied to man.

"Kind" is a made up term that has no biological meaning.

That you know the letters, does not mean you know what their function is, or even if it has one. Give me a break with that strawman press release.

An article you need to read.

"A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, . . ."

On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE

....Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", particularly in the lay press. However, it has been known for decadeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed that many noncoding sequences are functional. These include genes for functional RNA molecules (see above) and sequences such as origins of replication, centromeres, and telomeres.

Many are functional? You and I have a different view of the word "many", and probably differ in the word "functional" as well. Do you think a tv is functional simply because it can attract dust?

 

[Naturalism]

See how you're forced to go to such extremes with your potential falsifications?

What is really extreme about that potential falsification? Again, this is a possibility now and prior to even knowing any of the history of life that we currently now know. The model suggested & predicted we should find a specific nesting of life.

If such a fossil was found in such strata and it became apparent more and more like it were being found we would pretty much have to scrap the idea of descent with modification as it would make the entire model incoherent as to why we see such apparent descendants prior to the ancestors. As should be apparent, you can't have a workable model of descent with modification when the apparent descendants appear earlier in the fossil records than the ancestors.

What is your response? Nothing more than ID proponent Johnathan Wells has ever offered - Nothing. Just pretend none of the fossils matter and ignore them.

As I mentioned in another post, anyone can come up with a "potential falsification" for practically any hypothesis.

Yes, so what is wrong with such a potential falsification? Such fossils could be conceivably found. This goes beyond just whales in the cambrian strata, all you need to find is that there is not apparent nesting of life, that the apparent descendant life that we see in the strata and in genetics actually appeared earlier than the supposed ancestors. That would immediately falsify the model and ToE. To date no such evidence has been found & what is interesting is that in all the history of creationism that you'd think they would comprehend this understanding of what such a falsification would be and go about finding evidence that would falsify it in such a way. Instead they have predictably abandoned that and gone after absurd arguments from ignorance.

It's like me saying that discovering 'non-reproducing life' would falsify Genesis which states that life multiplies.

Non-reproducing life would not make a lot of sense as one of the key properties of life is that it reproduces.

How would it falsify Genesis regarding how life starts? Genesis states a non-testable, non-material, non-physical entity, (not scientifically testable or falsifiable) "spoke" incantation spells to form dirt into a living fully formed human and then formed a woman from his rib. The same "magic" was used to create wholly formed animals from nothing. Where has this ever been observed? Based on that it would appear science has already falsified such notions.

The truth is that most fossil rearrangements would be able to be accommodated.

No, the truth is that they would not. Consider just finding birds in the Archean layers. Instant falsification. Imagine finding that the decay rates as understood in physics demonstrates the earth is not 4.57 billion years old but only 50,000 years old. Instant falsification of ToE again.

The actual truth is that the observed diversification and descent is apparent based on the observations in biostratigraphy.

The fossils trends could have been that mammals, reptiles, birds were rearranged completely differently throughout the Upper Paleozoic to after the Paleogene

The Upper Paleozoic = Permian, a period of about 50 MY. The Paleogene, so ~23 MYA.

If the major diversification of these groups occurred later in the Paleogene, could it still be coherent with a model of descent with modification?

I don't see why it would be an issue in this hypothetical but given they are diversifying so much later all the patterns would be different and we wouldn't have as much apparent diversity comparable to what we see now.

potential evolutionary phylogenies could still be strung together within existing theoretical constraints. There is a lot of room for accommodation of different data and evolutionary storytelling

They could but only as all the diversity is being moved till later dates we wouldn't see the branching in genetics or fossils as occurring in the permian and so on but rather later in the Paleogene.

But even your cherry-picked 'mammals in the cambrian' example would not necessarily stop Evolution theory.

But why wouldn't it? That you don't or can't say.

The examples and objections you're providing are not of descendants appearing in older strata which would consequently break down nested hierarchy and overall descent with modification. Rather of overall diversification of major groups occurring at later times all together, which is conceivably possible and would not be an issue as it would still be inferred that descent with modification occurred.

Let's push it even further and hypothetically say every major type of life is found in the Cambrian. If this trend was discovered in earlier centuries, the theory could have been developed around the belief that most of Evolution occurred in the deep pre-cambrian but mass extinction/mass fossilization events did not occur until the Cambrian which is why all the different animal orders began to appear in the rocks there.

Every major type, as in mammals in the cambrian. Riddle me this, how can they observe any descent with modification in such a hypothetical pre-cambrian where fossilization wasn't occurring? The very scenario you're laying out removes the possibility of knowing which "major type of life" came at all.

Ok, so in your hypothetical concept of where an era of no fossils are present & then apparently all the life (& by all we mean all, all water life, all land terrestrial life, etc.) we have now is present in the Cambrian strata. That is a possible winner for falsifying it. With all that diversification it would be harder to explain & we would see, according to you, no further descent with modification for the rest of some 540 MY. By all accounts this would appear to be a "creationists wet dream" for a fossil find. Odd isn't it that no such account exists?

(I'm not speculating because these same types of arguments are used today when the "transitions" are out of order)

Like where?

In this scenario, when creationists would inevitably point out the total lack of any semblance of fossil sequence, they would be accused of using a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Yes, it's just too bad for creationists no record like this exists. So sorry.

Evolution theory would proceed unhindered under the same rationale as it does today - because it would be a "natural" explanation, therefore it would *have* to be true, and anyone who thought differently would just be 'clinging to their religion'. It would be the same rhetoric as we hear today.

Well, suppose we start to ask for an alternative method of analysis whereby we can use it to know how life became so diverse. What do you offer Mr. Creationist? The proposal of a "god did it!" is such a laughable scientific non-starter. Forget testing the conclusion you can't even test the premise of the agent as the cause!

That's ok though, I am sure the weight and historical accuracy of how well the "god did it" method/answer has & so much going for it that it's only a matter of time till we stupid materialists will give up methodological naturalism that has resulted in so many new advances in knowledge in favor for this timeless method of analysis.