Evidence agreeing with it has two ways of being evidence. Circumstantial or proving it necessarily. From what I understand, the only type evolution has is circumstantial. That is the evidence lines up with it. We have mutations to provide change, natural selection to prove the means positive ones get selected, and you have some in between fossils.

However, evidencing lining up with a theory only creates plausibility and perhaps probability. It doesn't prove it definitely.

I suggest the following can counter evolution in theory:

(1) A mathematical model showing positive mutations will be outnumbered by negative mutations even if we make the assumption that radiation caused many more mutations and life was more "mutation" prone at a point for the sake of trying to prove evolution. Probability wise, it maybe a paradox, that cannot be mathematically solved. Because of the nature of negative mutations outnumbering severely the amount of positive, the time where changes are needed for adaptation, in a significant manner, may never come. Instead, if we assume mutations were more even then, then it's problematic because negative mutations would outnumber and this would harm and not benefit the species.

Now (1) is argued and debated, I'm saying, whether true or not, this shows, it's potentially circumstantial. Since this model would prove it impossible.

(2) Binary systems that are irreducible. There are systems, but to not make things complicated, let's focus on something obvious. The mind as in a ghost in the machine type. This is binary, either it has it or does not. The step between non-ghost has to be many mutations which won't occur at the same time and even if they do, not to form the design all together.

Now let's say (2) is wrong, let's say I'm wrong about this. Again, it's a counter argument to it, so if true, it proves it to be false. Therefore, the evidence is not the type that proves it as fact. It's circumstantial at best. At worst, there are better theories that go with the evidence.