Science does not acknowledge 'literal proof'. So I see no point in recalling that evidence can be proof.<quoted text>
Evidence can be proof.
The evidence for a god and the evidence for evolution are as different as they can be. Evolution is a fact. The theory is confirmed.
If "God" means Jehovah-Jesus, there is enough evidence to rule "God" out.
What is the value of proof that does not literally prove?
The evidence for God and the evidence for evolution may be related; it is in your mind that the separation and division exists.