Everything actually. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an alternate unifying theory that matches the observations.
Everything actually. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an alternate unifying theory that matches the observations.
Boy. So it has everything to do with it. Look, I studied genetics. And botony. And back when I studied those subject (back in the 70's), big suprise, the TOE wasn't even mentioned. (I misspeak -- actually, in intro botony it was covered in like one day, and then never referred to again.)
I don't have to come up with an alternative unifying theory, since the TOE doesn't actually provide much. For example, suppose I am a geneticist looking for the genetic cause of a disease. Do I look up on the wall at my framed TOE statement that "Evolution is caused by natural selection, which is driven by mutation" and go, AHA! This predicts the problem! This tells me where to look!
No. It doesn't. That's why I say if the TOE didn't exist no one would miss it. Wait. Maybe this more focused statement, framed on my other wall (I turn around to look at it) which says: "Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974. will help me. Nope. Doesn't help me either. Guess I just have to get back to real science. You know, lab work. Observation. Recording data. Testing this, testing that. Writing those papers for peer review. (Just kidding -- that's not my job. But that is real science. The TOE has squat usefulness for that kind of work.)