Determinism is flawed.
In a way it is undirectly flawed because determinism is often associated with empericism and materalism. But the point is that determinism is a set of beliefs and a philosophy. Popper called it "ampliative logic"
That is creating a fixed biased paradigm about the whole of life and existence extrapolating biased theories, ampliative thoughts and conclusions from a set of incomplete data which by their nature can never be considered truths or unquestionable.
But the big flaws of determinism are in its logical foundation.
As Marjorie Grene has often said, determinism just logically invalidates itself.
It does it in many ways not easy to explain, let's just say that to keep the foundation required for determinism under your feet you must deny such foundation on the first place. That is, the ampliative logic and extrapolations of determinism depends on ignoring and violating its very same norms. One example is using a methaphysics foundation in order to deny metaphysics.
These problems are often overlooked though and we tend to use our technology advances to claim the empirical foundation of such a phylosophy.
But leaving aside the problems with modern sciences (which is something that students of "journalism of sciences" are more aware of researchers themselves) the filtered correct data are by their nature ephemeral, frail and neuter. They could never in any possible way support a phylosophy or a all-inclusive paradigm. And this is your mistake opus, you're failing to consider your paradigm and philosophy a biased interpretation of what is unknown and therefore a faith not differnet in degree from any other faith.
This is evident when you talk about "evidence" that would disprove your paradigm.
But your paradigm is your own interpretation and faith, it is not "a fact until proven otherwise" either you conclude that there might be a "3rd dimension" or either your conclude that there's none, it is metaphysics nonetheless.
Just like the link between spirituality and religion is not absolute (and that religion is not necessary to contemplate spirituality but sometimes religions try to claim that spiritual thoughts and self-questioning are a proof of their religious dogma) the link between biology, genetics, physics and determinism is even weaker (determinism is absolutely uncessary to contemplate and study those sciences and those sciences are often wrongly used as evidence for the determinist philosophies)
If you're really interested in these questions and don't want to shift from one dogma-thinking to another (religious - > scientism) you should not look at all the controversial genetics and biologic hypothesis but actually study epistemology and understand why the epistemologists never said "the last word has been said"
This is about determinism as a more general phylosophy.
There's another phylosophy which is "biological determinism" which you seem to accept as a solid paradigm. Biological determism is even more than flawed, it is plain wrong.
Biologic determinism is easily refuted in many fields and by many counterevidences, besides it lacks any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Richard Lewontin is a famous genetist and a strong opponent of biological determinism.
In many studies he demonstrated how there isn't the slightest evidence that what biological determinists "believe" about genes is even remotely true.
What is very ironic is that often supporters of biological determinism are not genetists at all and have a rudimental understanding of genes or what is true and what is just speculaton or disproved theories, while at the same time most genetists know there are no evidences supporting it and don't support it. Even more interesting is how most biological determinists are actually graduated of political, economical and law sciences and are clearly trying to take advantage of biodeterminism to keep the status-quo strong and unchanged. The discussion over biased peer-reviewing, manipulation of results (see the recent cases of faked data on psychiatric studies about twins and the homicide of amazonian natives in order to fake certain biodeterminist theories) bias in the interpretation, problems with fundings, prejudices against hypothesis, government agenda has been grown strong in epistemology. John Horgan has been pointing out how the majority of peer-reviewed and published studies don't fulfill the hard-core norms and criteria of demarcation especially falsifiability and repeatibility (this is mostly a problems of modern biology, humanities and medicine)
Recently it has been pointed out the majority of researchers, science writers and reviewers are plain epistemological incompetent.
I'm forgetting his name but recently the most famous british roboticist (whose goal in the 70's was to create a robot child that would have a self and would learn and feel sensations) recently said to forget artificial intelligence. He thinks we have already exceed the boundary by which an artificial intelligence can be considered superior (especially in its amount of data processing per minute) to any human mind and yet there's no evidence that robotos will ever have a consciousness. He has been researching into theories and studies dealing with complexity and global system and doesn't believe that the last word of what consciousness is has been said.
In fact only dishonest fundamentalists will claim that we know consciousness, that we can rule out a consciousness that is nothing but a figment of the brain and the neural impulses. In fact honest neuro scientists agree that none of their theories and studies can be considered a substantiate proof that consciousness and the self are emergent property of the brain and the body. It's still a matter of believing and the concept of using consciousness to theorize about consciousness will never be solved nor will be the problem of needing consciousness in order to consciously explain consciousness as nothing but a property of the brain. This has been explained properly by David Lack.
He call it the "doubt" but it's actually a logical flaw.
Anthony Flew is an example of a phylosophical determinist who abandoned its position after realizing the unreconbiliable contrasts between the many flawed hypothesis, ontological unexplanaible questions, emerging complexity and holitic paradigms that explain certain aspects of reality better than the reductionist approach.
This just to show that there's no logical link or dependence between determinism and natural sciences.
Bottom line: the last word has not been said and will probably never be said.