Really? So I am sure you know the explanation of how a species can scientifically change its mode of reproduction WHILE CONTINUING TO REPRODUCE. Specifically you should be able to explain how mammalian reproduction scientifically arose by random stochastic mutations from reptilian egg layers.
Will I have to wait 150 years for an answer?
You, as usual, completely ignored my other points. So I will state them again. I want you to address these issues, not the issues you want to address. I've also added in new ones, and as you are so fond of repeating the same 5 questions over and over again, as will I until you address them. The answer to your question above lies in one of them:
Because parts of a theory cannot be explained yet, does this immediately disprove a theory? A theory being a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that are made. Asking a theory to explain a certain aspect of the model, which the theory cannot explain as of yet, does not mean that the entire theory is debunked. When Newton's theory could not explain the the motion of Mercury exactly, but was close, was it thrown out? No. Einstein's model answered many of the questions about the errancy of the Newtonian model.
Evolution does not necessitate atheism. I can prove it right now. I am creating a religion (although it is not real, it makes me a theist regardless) which states that the universe was created and my God created the first life (abiogenesis not being a tenant of evolution). God then set forth a process called evolution which He knew with infinite wisdom would eventually create an intelligent enough being to worship Him. Say what you will about the lunacy of this religion, it is a religion nonetheless (plus I will claim that you are a B. Rabbiticism basher if you do). I just called my buddy and he said he will convert to my new religion, so I officially have a following. A similar process is done by real religions around the world and has been loosely declared by the Pope...
NEW POINT #1 (related to above point): Some people also believe in the morality, story, and ideas behind the Bible. However, they also believe that man (multiple men)had a part in its creation and therefore mistakes were perhaps made. Therefore, many Christians recognize this possibility and refuse to throw the baby (the overlying theme and beauty of the Bible) out with the bathwater (the scientific inconsistencies).
NEW POINT #2: This is for you and f.Christian and it attempts to counter the ludicrous connection with liberalism and evolution. I will prove the point by asking you a question, your answer will either show you that you're wrong or prove that you only equate conservative thinking with Christian thinking. A man explained all of his beliefs to you over a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and you learned that he was against any increase in taxation from what it is now, especially for welfare purposes. If you learned that he thought that the government was too filled with bureaucratic nonsense and needed to be slimmed down. He believed that the capitalist state is the only one which will eventually lead to a strong economy, and a strong foreign policy is essential to the protection of its people. After all this, he told you he thought that there was something to the theory of evolution, would you label him a liberal? Would you be so narrow minded?
New Point #3: I've learned a lot since joining this thread, and the following statement derives from this attained knowledge. If a large number of RATIONAL men believe something to be true, it is irrational to conclude with complete authority that they are incorrect unless you can provide absolute and compelling evidence which destroys the theory. This is true for religion, and right now, it holds true for evolution.