[darbymcgill]

The statement "there is no evidence of X" implicitly means "currently no evidence has been found for X", not "there is and will never be any evidence of X"

I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists, but without further clarification, only the author knows what was implied.

[Stultis]

I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists, but without further clarification, only the author knows what was implied.

It's not implication. It's plain English. "Is" is present tense. "There is no" [noun] means there is (present tense = at present) no [noun]. It doesn't mean their was no [noun], or will be no [noun], or can be no [noun].

Or are you going to explain how it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

[Stultis]

I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists

Btw, this wasn't a correct statement of the issue.

"None has been found" does in fact mean that "none exists".

"Evidence" in science is like "evidence" in the law. Until it is discovered and recorded it doesn't exist. Indeed even the observation/discovery of the underlying factual material doesn't make it "evidence." It only becomes evidence when it's relevance to some scientific issue or problem has been elucidated.