[Salvavida]

Listen friend. I've actually studied in this field, and have talked to a renown scientist that looks at this every day. I'm not using word-definition games, I'm using the verbiage those who study this field, use.

You obviously do not belong to that group. You are ignorant. Let's leave it at that.

When you have spoken with a scientist in the field, and have read up on where the community stands on the issue, then you can get back with me, and we can chat on the same level.

But if you want to believe in macro evolution....rock on. Personally....I don't give Shiite.

[BroJoeK]

Salvavida: "Listen friend. I've actually studied in this field, and have talked to a renown scientist that looks at this every day.
I'm not using word-definition games, I'm using the verbiage those who study this field, use."

Sorry pal, but you certainly are using word definition games, deceptively and dishonestly.
Perhaps your mentors also played such games?

The fact is that the American Academy of Science has never put out a challenge to "prove" evolution -- that's ridiculous.
Scientific theories are confirmed, not "proved" and they are confirmed by tests intended to falsify them.
If significant tests fail to falsify a hypothesis, then it's considered "confirmed" and is classified a "theory".

The basic theory of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) has been confirmed innumerable times, indeed is reconfirmed every day by scientists working in the field, has never been seriously falsified, and so is considered "settled science".

The American Academy of Science has not challenged anyone to submit papers reconfirming evolution, certainly not that I've ever heard.

Those are simple facts, pal, regardless of how grandiose you imagine your own education & learning to be.