"Thus, you may have something you want to call evidence; but, you have nothing that is evidence for evolution"
You are completely changing the definition of the word evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
This is a routine creationist ploy, which has been refuted multiple times and is dealt with at the above link and many others on the talkorigins site and others.
"You CAN have your own data; but NOT your PRIVATE interpretation of data." is what I think you mean.
Am I wrong?
No, I'm stating the obvious. You have thrived on a lack of standard application of the term. Just as you have thrived on the complicated shell game with the word "evolution". Just as you have thrived on many other abuses of language that you up to now have largely not been challenged on.
Facts may be evidence of something. If they are not supportive of something to the exclusion of other possibilities, they are merely evidence of something. And this is why in crime detection, the term "possible homicide" is used when the evidence isn't clear. So, no, I am not redefining anything. I'm stating the blatant obvious in an environ where PC has become an engine of obscuring the obvious and redefinition of the uncomfortable truth.
Facts may end up being evidence for anything. Until it is established that they are evidence to the exclusion of other possibilities, the proper sentiment is that you "FEEL" it may be evidence for evolution. But feeling is not fact or evidence - it falls to the category of belief - not science. Believing something is true doesn't make it true; but, it doesn't outright disqualify belief if belief is unmet by other factors. Belief is not evidence. Evidence may support a belief; but, it doesn't neccessarily prove one. Evidence, as an example, exists that people several generations after the apostle Peter died were saying that Peter went to Rome. Does that then morph into evidence that Peter ever went to Rome - no. Would some people like it to, sure. Their belief belongs to them and no-one begrudges it. It doesn't make it right. Whether it's plausible or useful is quite another thing. But when it comes to what the facts are, what supports them if anything at all, and whether that rises to the level of being evidence for something - much less authoritative - more precision is required than "I believe" when we're talking "science". "I believe" doesn't make evidence of passing into evidence of a crime. Details are what do that. And if the details are as subjective as the "evidence", you really have nothing more than a pile of assumptions being begged off as a fact of high precision. We aren't redefining language, we're demanding that language, methodology and the like be attended to for once instead of the bowl of mush that has passed for it for so long as to make your meanderings appear to mean something.
You may believe it; but, your belief isn't evidence of evolution anymore than the believers in Jim Jones was evidence for the authority of his views.. in hindsight, it is rather evidence of cultism. And the same can be said in hindsight about the evolutionist arguments IMO.