Why do you insist on "unique" evidence? Everything can be made to fit the design paradigm. There is nothing that can't, and you know it.
Easy. If the evidence is not *unique*, then you only have the basis for a *preference*, not a claim of being 'scientific'.
Scientific *facts* are indisputable. Scientific 'preferences' are merely that, preferences. They are a choice based on belief. Evolution is a choice based on belief. Don't pretend otherwise.
You claim that 'everything can be made to fit the design paradigm'. So how is evolution different? What can't be made to fit the 'evolutionary paradigm'?
You have trapped yourself. You can either admit that the 'evolutionary paradigm' is no different from the 'design paradigm' and 'explains everything' *or* you can provide evidence which is not explained by the 'evolutionary paradigm', in which case you are arguing against your own position.
Which is it?