You don't have an example of planetary evolution, you have planets.
No. We have an awful lot more than just "planets". The hypothesis is based on the arrangement of the planets, their patterns of positioning and rotation. The pattern and positioning of the rotation of their satellites, and other bodies in the solar system. Of the substances of which they are constructed and of the many extrasolar observations that appear to show stages in the formation of a solar system.
When Watson and Crick were figuring out the structure of DNA, and they incorrectly deduced a triple stranded structure they didn't conclude that DNA didn't have a structure, or that DNA wasn't, after all, the chemical of inheritance; they deduced that they had got their structure wrong and looked again at working it out.
The same applies here: being wrong about the details has no impact on the observations that led to the conclusion regarding the bigger picture.
The epithets, "big" and "little" are not relevant. You are proclaiming a fallacy-of-Exclusivity which is when all of the confirming evidence is regarded as solely relevant, whereas a piece of small evidence is ignored.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you want to address whether something happened you need to address the evidence for it; not the details of a theory as to how exactly it happened.
I don't know if you have read my red-balls hypothesis, but it goes like this. I have a hypothesis that balls are only red, I have a billion red balls to prove it the "big" evidence you speak of, and I have one green ball to disprove it. The "little" evidence you speak of.
That's a completely different situation. There your green ball is direct evidence against the hypothesis that all the balls are red.