This is again a misunderstanding of the scientific process. You do not draw a conclusion first, and then find evidence to support it. One looks at the data, then forms a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, forms a conclusion based on the tests and evidence, and then submits the data, evidence, hypothesis, and conclusion for peer review. In order for it to be accepted, it must pass muster. It must be repeatable. Independent peers must come to the same conclusion you did. If not, your conclusion gets rejected or it gets modified. It’s a tedious process, but that’s what it has to be.
In religion, you’re must work from the fact that the deity exists, everything comes from it, and that your dogma is correct and absolute. Then, you try to find evidence to support it. This is the reverse of the scientific process. This is faith. Not science.
Your reading of evolution is incorrect. It does not state that one life form evolved from another. What it states is that there are common ancestors. Humans didn’t evolve from monkeys and dogs didn’t evolve from fish. Rather, there are common ancestors. The fossil record bears this out.