Genomic data could have falsified evolution and common descent. Instead it confirmed it in spades.
The fossil record could at any time yield up evidence of winged or hoofed mammals were contemporaneous with dinosaurs, throwing off the chronological narrative of life's development on Earth.
Numerous experiments on natural selection in the lab could have shown the futility of natural selection as a means of changing a population, instead the experiments show how robust the mechanism is.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about and are arguing from ignorance while promoting a “God of the gaps” philosophy. ;)
But it will be characterized as such whether it is or not.
Seriously, let's try a thought experiment. Tomorrow a research team identifies a structure or process that appears to be irreducibly complex. They do all their homework, they have peers review the work and everything adds up. Ten years later, hundreds of researchers have tried to find a way it could be less complex and still work, and they've come up with nothing. Commentators legitimately compare it to a court case where there's a lot of evidence against the accused, but there's this one piece of evidence that makes it impossible for him to have comitted the crime.
Do you really think that Richard Dawkins is going to say, "Well, maybe there is a God" or even say "I still don't believe there's a God, but it seems likely that much of science has been going down a dead end street for the past 10 years or so"? Or will he just say, "This is the God of the gaps, it's not science, eventually we'll find out what allowed this structure to evolve, it's all part of the wedge strategy, etc., etc., ad nauseum."
You see, the problem is that even if evolution is not religious in nature, we have spent so much time telling people that evolution is beyond proven and that it's the core of modern science that it is now too big to fail. It's too embedded. If it were admitted that it has been falsified (or even admitted that an apparent falsification is the research of a real scientist and not a creationist plotter) it would be like shouting "science is bunk" from the mountaintops. It wouldn't be true that science was bunk, but so many scientists have made the science "brand" about Dawkinism that the PR effect would be similar.