Evolution is an implicit (if not explicit) claim that all living organisms are a result of evolution from a single cell (or whatever primitive life from).
However, there's never any predictable observation of any (or over 99.99%) living organisms can actually evolve from a SINGLE CELL!!!
There's a fallacy being always embedded with this theory with which a bubble-bursting question can always make this fallacy surface. And this bubble-bursting question is that whenever a so-called evidence is presented, you can ask,
That piece of evidence supports the evolution
from what and to what.
There's a reason behind why this question cannot be answered. All you need is a much clearer concept about what science is actually about.
Here's an attempt to make things more precise.
A scientific theory is a speculation that something will repeat by following a set of rules.
A hypothesis is a suggestion on how such a repetition shall repeat but not yet proven. This can be further divided into 2 categories, 1) by observation we already know its repeating pattern but we can't yet make the set of rule behind it proven, and 2) we can't actually obtain an empirical observation to say that it actually repeats with a pattern. But based on the assumption that it can repeat that we start to develop a theory behind its repetition.
Science itself is for the confirmation of such a kind of repeating or repeatable patterns govern by a set of rules. Science is to figure out this set of rules and to confirm it repeatedly, and more importantly, predictably.
Law is when such a set of rule is confirmed repeatedly and predictably in an unmistakable manner, that is, if its prediction failed then it's considered falsified. Law however is still relative. Law is supposed to work under a paradigm, outside which it may no longer be true.
To confirm a repeating truth repeatedly and predictably, that's what science is supposed to be.
Big Bang cannot be considered proven because we can't observe how a big bang repeats. Yet a theory can still be developed under the assumption that it's something can be repeated, say in the formation of other universes.
ToE is a suggestion that the forming of a species from a single cell (or whatever primitive life form) is a repeatable process. It is however a deception to say that this is observable because what have been observed is not a process of how a species being formed from a single cell. What being usually observed is a discrete advancement of the genetic changes. Thus the empirical observations so obtained can only be used to support that genetic changes can occur. It's far from saying that species can be formed from a single cell, unless the following fallacy is to be applied,
"
Because slide genetic changes can be observed such that all species must be from a single cell."
This is a fallacy inviting your faith to believe.