Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

No, atheism is not related to science. Atheism is simply a rejection of a claim. Atheism also is unrelated to evolution, so you attacking that scientific fact isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

Also, no, we don't have to fill in the gap to reject your claim. Asking us "well what else caused all this then?" does not require us to answer a damn thing in order to not accept your bullshit. If you want us to believe a damn thing you do, then come here with the evidence to back that up.

All I was trying to say was that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information. Someone said that was wrong, so I asked them if they know of another cause. I'm not saying that because we don't know how it was done we appeal to God, I'm saying that because we know intelligence is capable, then it is not irrational to conclude that it played a role. 

What would you consider evidence of design?

---

How convenient to just ignore cells. We could talk about the cross-talk between signal transduction pathways that allow external signals to change your transcriptional output. We could talk about how cells have regions dedicated to packaging proteins and delivering them to where they need to go. We could talk about the small nucleolar RNAs that direct editing of spliceosomal snRNAs which then cut and rearrange other RNAs which can go on to be translated by the incredibly complex ribosome to make proteins which, by the way were essential for everything I've mentioned so far. 

If you want to complain about the placement of your trachea, then you should at least know that we have plenty of mechanisms to keep us from choking. For example, we have a class of surfactant enzymes that break up fluid in the lungs. Without it, fluid would accumulate quickly and we would die. We could talk about how important the epiglottis is. If this didn't manage to evolve at the same time the trachea/esophagus arrangement evolved, we would choke every time we ate/drank anything.

Or one could try to understand natural selection.  
You make the same old simplistic argument looking only at end products instead of the process of evolution.

I understand natural selection. It isn't a creative force, it just allows the genes of the most reproductively successful to increase in frequency. You assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated more from the norm.