Has evolution been proven ?

I, lacking thorough knowledge on the topic of evolution, may perhaps be wrong, but it seems that the foregoing arguments all fail on one point: you all are using statements that can not possibly been proven true (e.g. similarities in the salamander and fish; large amounts of oil, etc) as your crucial premises (granted, there are philosophical problems with the concept of truth, but since we are making world judgements regarding evolution and creation in the first place, we must presuppose that documented evidence of evolution would essentially constitute evolution being proven true). Rather than making arguments that employ judgements regarding precabrian fossils, you should focus on the present.I have been under the impression that for macroevolution to be true, there must be documented instances of speciation. Indeed, there have been. In 1905, Hugo de Vries witnessed Oenothera lamarckiana (the evening primrose) speciate into a new species which he called Oenothera gigas; he could not breed the two, and thus the former had macroevolved into the latter. Countless other examples exist, including those involving a number of flies, beetles, a lab rat worm, and bacteria. A more detailed article concerning these documented instances is available at Observed Instances of Speciation and although some will tell me to argue my own point, citing that internet articles are likely specious, the article is backed up by dozens of PUBLISHED sources (for those of you who consider the publishing industry the crux of altruism).We all have DNA that governs the development of our body. A mutation in that DNA can cause a child to have no bones in his arm--or even no arm at all. All it takes for that fish's fin to turn into a leg is a change in the fish's genetic material, and all of the documented instances of speciation support the notion that a fish could evolve into a salamander. Just as the evening primrose is extremely close in genetic makeup and physical appearance to oenothera gigas and the two are unable to mate, the lobe-finned fish is close in genetic makeup and physical appearance (with some obvious difference) and yet the two cannot mate.

I understand that for the theory of evolution to work, the fossilized evidence must align itself with the basic premises of the theory, but I don't understand why documented cases of microevolution (e.g. my mother has 4 wisdom teeth [or had, before they were removed], I have 3, and my friend has none; finches evolving in the Galapagos to adapt to their surroundings), combined with documented cases of speciation, cannot suffice evidence of evolution. Granted, the past is a rich resource, but the present is provable. There will always be "missing links" in the history of evolution (e.g. where is the common ancestor shared by chimps and humans; where is the common ancestor shared by humans and dogs; where is the common ancestor shared by humans and fish, etc.). Don't you see how this approach to proving evolution will be infinitely problematic and subject to argument by creationists? I guess what I'm asking, Quetzal (or especially any creationists out there), is to explain how documented cases of microevolution and speciation (i.e. the documented evolution of the species that have been observed to do so) do not prove evolution by themselves; what is the hole in this argument? I believe that fossils should indeed be used as evidence for evolution, but by all means they should not (and cannot) prove evolution alone.