What exactly is this "legal standard of proof" you are talking about, P_S? In a civil court it's based on the balance of the probabilities; in a criminal court, "beyond reasonable doubt"- a stronger balance of probability. In neither case is there often [nor can there be] any peer reviews or cross checking of hypotheses or- as people found out with supposedly almost infallible tests for explosives in IRA cases- tests of claims for the reliability of the evidence.
This kind of "proof" is actually at a much lower level that either philosophical, scientific or mathematical concepts of proof and disproof, so, if you accept this standard the whole theory of evolution, scientific or not, which is the agglomeration of evidence that countless species- every species for which there is sufficient evidence and which has been examined- have evolved and are evolving still, is at a much higher level of proof than that which you require.