Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

You can't just assert that algorithms show it to be adequate.

The algorithm of imperfect replication and differential reproduction leads inexorably to evolution; it can go nowhere else.
Small changes accumulate and there is no limit to change that accumulation.

And I know that there have been a lot of reproductive opportunities, but we do not know how to accurately estimate the number. 

So you cannot claim that there hasn't been sufficient opportunity.

And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods. 

It is not either/or.
And you are ignoring the complex fats and proteins that meat provides that are far more difficult (or even impossible) to get from plant matter.
It does not matter to nutrition how much plant material went into producing the meat.

And when you say that is a ludicrously incorrect statement, you must be ignoring how energy moves through trophic levels. When we are eating meat, we are acting as secondary consumers.

It doesn't matter.  Meat has properties that plants do not.

The primary consumer doesn't consume all the available energy from the producer. They don't assimilate all of the energy that they consume. Then we, as secondary consumers, have the same inefficiency. If we ate plants, we are acting as primary consumers and cutting out the wasted energy of the middle man.

You ignore the increased energy expended to gather and consume sufficient plant material as compared to meat.

The problem with these algorithms is that the desired sequences (the ones that represent functionality and therefore evolution) are input beforehand by the people writing the algorithm. Without putting the desired sequences first, the simulation will not no what sequences to select for. If you do put them first, then you are no longer accurately simulating evolution, because it does not have that type of forward looking memory. 

And I don't think I claimed that there hasn't been sufficient time, but I did claim that we do not know enough to assume that there was.

And you're right about the fact that from a nutrition perspective it doesn't matter how much energy was lost in the intermediate species. But the fact is that people who eat only plants (I'm not one of them) do just fine. Meat has more concentrated protein, iron, and fat, but these things can easily come from beans and nuts and such. And are you suggesting that it takes more energy to gather plant food than meat? I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this, though.

---

I know that's not the point you were making. Demanding that I peer-review my ideas before you take them seriously is a joke. If that is what you are waiting for, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

But that's how science is done.  If you feel that the theory is flawed in any way you can post your concerns here --which as you note, doesn't get us anywhere-- or you can show how it's wrong using the mechanisms in place to do so and changing the course of biology for the better.  I'm not waiting for you to do it.  If you're right, someone else will eventually do it.  If you're wrong, then my unwillingness to take your ideas seriously was justified.

And no, the authors almost certainly attribute the source of the amazing features and systems they describe to evolutionary forces. I just put those out to show that there are conclusions with what I believe to be theistic implications commonly presented in the peer-reviewed literature.

Do they really just attribute it?  Because that should be challenged, it seems to me.  If all they have is a belief in evolution and all they do is attribute their findings to evolution, they've left an immeasurably large amount of work undone.  Why isn't anyone turning the scientific community on its ear by pointing out this enormous problem?

People are doing it. Read some of the peer-reviewed books by the ID community. You can label them all as religious fanatics and ignore them, but then don't say that no scientist is challenging the core evolutionary mechanism. I think that the more we are learning about molecular biology, the more we are seeing that natural selection and mutation do not seem to be an adequate explanation. I may make my case more formally when I'm older, but for now, I mainly want to see where people find flaw in the arguments.