[Dimensio]

Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence?

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

No, it does not. Any conclusions that you derive from this faulty premise will also be faulty, so there is no need to comment further.

[ShadowAce]

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

Thank you. Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

Once that has been explained satisfactorily, I'll listen to more evidence that the TOE may be true.

No, it does not.

Yes it does, as it attempts to use nothing but chance and slective breeding to explain us. There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.