If you are going to argue for or against Evolution, then you need to understand the SCIENTIFIC definitions of “proof” and of “evidence”.
You don’t want an explanation, just a short definition for each term term.
Evidence is a physical phenomena that can observed and measured.
Proof is logical model, like an equation. Proof is not physical, but a set of variables with numbers and possibly with a constant or 2.
That the end of my definitions.
Now. To give you an example to illustrate the differences:
Ohm‘s Law is an equation that represent electricity in a conductor:
I = V R
That Ohm’s Law equation is “proof”, not evidence.
Evidence are the conductors, for examples, wires, resistors, transistors, etc. Evidence are the source of electricity, eg battery, power outlet, etc. Also evidence are also electricity itself.
Under normal circumstances you won’t see electricity, but it can still be observed, BUT i highly recommended that you don’t touch live wire, for obvious reasons.
But you can still observe electricity, by using a multimeter. It will not only detect electricity, but provide useful information about electricity that flowing through your conductor, eg electric current (I), the voltage (V). Some multimeters can measure power and AC current in AC device or circuitry too.
The multimeter can also the conductor’s resistance (R).
The points being evidence are the electricity itself and the conductor, and those information that the multimeter provide - measurements - are ALL EVIDENCE.
These evidence are not proof. Proof is only that equation I have given you, the Ohm’s Law.
Any person who understand physics or worked as electrician would understand what I have just explained to you in my above example.
But I don’t think you were any good with even basic physics, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you will make more pointless excuses.