Why TOE is not accepted

Being convinced by a weight of evidence requires mental training. You actually have to train yourself to judge a proposition based on the evidence.A surprising (and disheartening) portion of American society doesn't have this training, and as a result, they judge the validity of positions based on one or more of a number of other criteria, like:1) How attractive the speaker is
2) How little evidence there is for the proposition (on the assumption that "things are never what they seem"; seriously, there have been creationists on this board who have been convinced that evolution is false because its supported by all the evidence)
3) The degree to which it is consistent with what their mother told them
4) How the proposition makes them feel
5) The enthusiasm with which the proposition is opposed by its detractors (i.e. "there must be something to it if they're so against it.")etc. All you have to do to observe the truth of this is to watch the American spectacle of politics.If the public at large was prepared to judge creationism on its true merit, there would be zero opposition to its promulgation. Apparently a slight majority of Americans are not able to do that.

Where do you get this crazy idea that you can't test the past?Did it occur to you that everything that happens winds up in the past? How could we test anything if we couldn't test the past?

Well, firstly, there's no such thing as "kind", and moreover, you're wrong. Adaptive changes can and do give rise to new species, not just varying individuals in the old ones. It's observed fact. You're right that variation appears to be built into our genome; in fact, there was so much capability for variation "built into" the first organism that it gave rise to all observed species. Pretty cool. How do you figure? The cheetah's alleles are no more "hard-wired" than any other species. There's simply less variation, currently, among cheetahs than other cats because all living cheetahs are the decendants of a very limited gene pool, as the result of a near-extinction.If cheetah populations increase (I don't know if they are right now or not; I rather doubt it as human expansion has been very hard on the big cats) then the variation between individual cheetahs will increase thanks to mutation. If it increases enough, and gene flow is interrupted between two subgroups, a new species of cheetah will arise. Happens all the time. All DNA sequences have the "potential", thanks to mutation, to become any other sequence. As the only thing that separates one species from another, no matter how different, is the sequence of their DNA, all organisms have the capability or potential for rpecisely the sort of long-term change that evolution describes. Er, no, you can't reduce genetic potential. You can reduce the number of actual alleles, but you can never reduce the number of potential alleles in a gene pool, as mutation bestows DNA with the capability to give rise to literally any allele whatsoever. Shocking truth time: in reality, there are no species.

No, you wouldn't expect that from common design. When designers design multiple things, each one is unique and suited to its purpose. For instance, here's Dean Kamen, the famous designer:Here are two of his inventions, a kidney dialysis machine and the Segway electric scooter:As you can see, they're nothing alike.Common designers do not result in design similarities, as we can see from my simplistic example. Thus the "common designer" hypothesis (pardon me while I choke on my beverage) cannot be an explanation for the often-counterintuitive similarities between organisms. However, evolution makes predictions that NS+RM will modify structures possessed by an organism's ancestors to fit a new environment, even if a totally new, redesigned structure would be superior. Evolution predicts descent with modification and that's exactly what we observe in the wild.

I know exactly what we're talking about, and as I just proved, similiarities (particularly the pseudogenetic similarities that Schraf is referring to) don't indicate anything but common descent.For the second time, similarity doesn't indicate a common designer.. What exactly is the barrier to your comprehension, here?