And those lesser organisms came from where? You can keep going back to that first organism, and then what? At that point, most of the evolutionists on these threads state that that is biogenesis and evolution doesn't address that. I still fail to see why evlotution refuses to deal with where that life came from. I don't see that it's a different topic at all. Going from chemical whatever to the first functioning organism is a form of evolution. The first life had to come from somewhere. For many people one of the problems with the TOE is the refusal to address how it went from non-living to living.
Why would areas that a theory doesn't address at all effect how you would feel about areas the theory does address? That doesn't make sense at all.
You're mixing up two different things. The ToE is correct. Maybe you're argument is more with some of the people (the Dawkins' of the world) than it is with the actual Theory itself.