All modern science, not just evolutionary biology, is based on the scientific method. The scientific method involves continual questioning and theories are always subject to falsification. Yes, insight often comes through continual testing and falsification. (I have no idea where you got the idea that TOE is exempt from such falsification.)
I am glad you agree. To disagree with the obvious is just a demonstration of hiding ones head in the sand by denial. If you actually do still have a reasoning mind then you can understand much so called 'information' is based on the interpretation of data and the credibility of the data produced.
As to your confidence that you have found devastating flaws in the Theory of Evolution which will overturn 150+ years of scientific inquiry, by all means publish your "manifesto" and win the Nobel Prize. (I'm quite serious. If your ideas are superior, they will survive the scrutiny of peer-review.)
The peer review and publication process is contolled by shmooks that do doubt would expect and demand a higher level of substantiation than ay evolutionist themselves can provide, so I would not waste my time.
BTW I have never seen a Noble prize awarded for any theory, not even an evolutionary one.
One of the best ways to go down in history as a giant of science is to overturn long-held theories. (Despite the "conspiracy theories" of many anti-evolution ranters, the scientific community worldwide reveres those who upset the status quo, revolutionize scientific thinking, and provoke major revisions of textbooks.) After centuries of Newtonian physics, Einstein shocked the world and (with the help of scientists who created experiments to test his theories) convinced physicists of the astounding limitations of Newton's ideas. Politics, ideologies, and other real or imagined human tendencies to preserve the dogmas of the status quo have again and again crumbled as the processes of the scientific method eventually exposed flaws and improved our understanding of the universe.
So if you are certain that you have uncovered "fatal flaws" in the Theory of Evolution, by all means enlighten the world with your analysis by publishing a comprehensive review of TOE.
The fatal flaws in evolutionary theory have always been hand waved away with more ridiculous and non plausible scenarios. Why would I expect anything to change now?
Impress us all and someday we can all recount how we watched you change the landscape of modern biology. And don't complain that the system is rigged against you or that everybody else is blind and biased to the "real truth" (which only you and a disenfranchised minority of anti-evolution crusaders have figured out and embraced.) Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who couldn't find even an adjunct-faculty undergraduate teaching post. Yet, a short article on his theory of relativity instantly catapulted him into the stratosphere of advanced physics. If your work has exceptional merit, the world will take notice.
I do not need to do waste my time publishing papers to falsify any of your silly scenarios. Your own evolutionary researchers are crackers at it, and do it very well themselves.
Meanwhile, you need to learn some of the fundamentals of science in general and biology in particular. It only takes a few seconds of reading your protestations to determine that you aren't going to be granted tenure as part of any biological sciences faculty at a leading accredited university (or at least, not anytime soon). That's not a smug put-down. It is simply reality and I'm showing you the courtesy of trying to help you.
Dear, you cannot refute an unfalsifiable scenario and none of you have done so as yet.
You can no more falsify my interpretation of erectus the ape than I can falsify your scenario of primitive half wit erectus nursing and carrying a dependent new born. They are theories and are both unfalsifiable. Evos may and have accepted the ridiculous many times. However I have to say that you lot have crossed the line with the new erectus female pelvis and the ensuing stories and I think on this one it is falsifiable by evoking good old observation and a little common sense.
Half wits cannot nurture dependent babies and we observe that today. Highly sexually dimorphic primitive beings, and all that it implies also means they could not nurture a dependent neonate. This is research from your very own. A baby is is either not fully dependent and can cling to mum or it cannot and there is nothing in the middle at the time of birth and the ensuing few hours. Hence the obvious suggests that erectus still had a full fur coat and the young still must have clinged to their mother as apes do today.
That is a theory based on observation. Common sense has absolutely no place in evolutionary thinking and nether has observation, it appears.
It comes down to plausibility, and my interpretation of evolutionary research is much more plausible than yours. It is that simple.
Sometimes one of the lowest-achieving students in a class visits the professor's office to argue that his/her wrong answer on an exam question should qualify as an "equally true" alternative answer deserving of full credit. (They may even strain, contort, and twist some perceived flaw in the minutiae of the topic in order to declare the right answer inferior to their incorrect answer.) Sadly, far too many anti-evolution campaigners go far beyond that vain and pathetic strategy on a regular basis and not only contest concepts which they don't even understand, they presume that they are somehow intellectually superior to everyone else in the classroom (as well as the analogue of the entire departmental faculty) and should be teaching the courses and rewriting the textbooks. Does that position sound at all familiar to you?
The position that resembles your scenario best is your very own researchers. After more than 150 years they are no closer to resolving the how, when, where or why of evolution. That strikes me as a pathetic and vain attempt to support the impossible. Your past shoving of rubbish down creationists throats that is now falsified and recanted by your own demonstrates this well.
If you are correct and everyone else is wrong, the best scholars and scientists will affirm your brilliance and confirm your qualifications and the superiority of your ideas. Your mastery of the field will be confirmed by your performance, not by mere posturing. Think about it.
Oh honey, your incredibly well credentialled researchers are the very fools that propose this rubbish prior to the falsification in the first place, therefore your point is mute.
