I sort of see where you are going with this, but IF you use words to mean something that others do NOT agree with/have another definition for, then you are not only in the wrong, but you do your position no good at all.
In Europe, "corn" is used to mean GRAINS of all kind. That is just NOT the case in America, nor in scientific usage.
What about the appendix? It has no purpose now, yet all humans are still born with one. Is THAT evolution or purposeful selective breeding?
I'll start with this first, because the latest information says it has something to do with the immune system. You might check your facts. It does serve a purpose. Not knowing what that is completely doesn't make it vestigial. That's the problem with scientists canonizing untruths as facts until they figure out what the truth is.
Second, This is a US political forum in which I give not one hoot what Europeans do with regard to corn. If you are confused by "corn" you have more issues than I can tell you how to deal with. I don't believe that to be the case. It largely resembles picking knits. Average people understand what corn is. And as I noted before, that is primarily why I use it - because they know what it is. It's called clarity. They also know what dogs are rather than some two to five word latin mess. Dog, we all understand. Simplicity. If I say a dog producing a dog, people get it. That level of clarity also disallows you from getting away with saying that a dog produced a non-dog because your label of "species" infers that to be the case. It isn't. You started with and ended with a dog. Your goal is to show macroevolution. Dog making dog is micro. Micro and macro are inequalities meaning you got work to do. Evidently, ya'll don't want to fess up to that or do the work or offer proof. Too bad. Not being mean, just not being hoodwinked.