[snarks_when_bored]

On the other hand, one piece of evidence or one evidence-based argument is almost never enough to establish the probable truth of an empirical proposition.

Right. Any one thing can have many possible explanations. What gives evolution its explanatory power as a theory is the multiple lines of evidence (morphology, DNA, geology, radiometric dating, continental drift, tree rings, ice cores, ocean cores, etc.) that all converge to support it. Nothing else even approaches evolution's ability to unite the evidence from all these various disciplines.

As The Fonz would say (before he jumped the shark?):

"Correctomundo!"

[bvw]

:"Nothing else even approaches evolution's ability to unite the evidence from all these various disciplines."

Sure there is. Design!

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . morphology, DNA, geology, radiometric dating, continental drift, tree rings, ice cores, ocean cores, . . .

These are NOT multiple lines of evidence. These are multiple disciplines that may be employed to interpret evidence in such a way as to fit a priori views. The philosophy of evolution once again proves itself predictable as ever; predictably dedicated toward obfuscation where empirical science is concerned.