The TOE does not have an agenda, and neither do people who study it other than trying to explain all of the evidence before us.
If, however, you can come up with an alternate testable theory that fits the available evidence better than the TOE, there is a Nobel Prize with your name on it.
We'll wait while you work on that.
It hasn't panned out and you guys have been changing your story to respond to the problems you've encountered since Darwin.
Talking to you is like talking to a stubborn 5 year-old. You really don't understand the nature of science, do you? Let me just repeat: all theories are open to changes over time as new evidence comes to light.
Somebody needs a bottle and a nap.
If that were the case then why does evolution avoid the evidence rather than embrace it. The evidence from genetics has been stated. Nothing other than a useless abberation has ever been witnessed. How then does evolution deal with this - by ignoring it and hoping people don't pay attention to the facts. Stating something in light of facts to the contrary is called lying, misleading, decieving, etc - not truth.
It's kinda like the liquifaction issue. You guys want to say that the geologic record doesn't show completely nice sorted items by bouyancy. Well, I didn't say it would. I said by and large this is what is shown. But abberation is expected for unknown factors like flood runoff, quakes, upheavals, etc. In a world wide catastrophe, it is expected that the aftermath will to some degree follow order based on processes; but, otherwise will look catastrophic. We have to leave everything out after the liquifaction issue though so we can argue that it can't be liquifaction because there are abberations. Things don't happen in a vacuum. And you aren't analyzing looking for facts. You are proceeding from your thesis looking for proof for it. This approach, btw, is considered bad science. LOL.