You, as usual, completely ignored my other points.
In other words, you have excuses, not an answer, you have rhetoric, not science.
Because parts of a theory cannot be explained yet, does this immediately disprove a theory?
A theory to be legitimate has to provide the best explanation for the facts. The above is a pretty elementary fact, known long before Darwin was born. It is also a pretty obvious fact that the change is quite big. It is also pretty obvious that a species to continue to 'evolve' has to continue to reproduce. So I consider the above a very conclusive rebuttal of the theory of evolution. Further, I have never seen a discussion of this problem by evolutionists in the literature (certainly not by Darwin), on the internet, or on these pages. It seems that evolutionists think that if they ignore the problem it will go away - which is what evolutionists have been doing since I first posted this question. It will not go away.
Let's use your line in a little make-believe conversation between Newton and the Pope during his time.
Pope: So I see you have a new little theory.
Newton: Yup. It is called gravity. It attracts objects together based on mass and distance. It's a very easy formula, actually, look.
Pope: Well, it seems to have a discrepancy here in the motion of Mercury. Can you explain how your theory and reality don't quite coincide? Do you have an answer?
Newton: No but it's a start. It isn't perfect yet!
Pope: In other words, you have excuses, not an answer, you have rhetoric, not science. If you cannot explain everything about the motion of planets with your new theory, then throw it out. It seems you have a problem of planetary proportions! Hahahaha!
Newton: Hahahaha! (Newton looks into the camera and shrugs with his hands out. A muted trumpet plays "Waah, Waah, Waah, Waaaaaa!". Freeze frame, roll credits).