Yes, but the level of both tends to decrease with more evidence. How does one interpret a series of named species and forms intermediate between them in a series of successive deposits as anything but transitional?
But patterns still exist. Why does this cladogram, purely based on blind statistical analysis of half of a gene that encodes a mitochondrial electron-transport chain protein agree as well as it does with radular characters, gross soft anatomy, and shell characters, if it doesn’t reveal relationships?
As can nothing in science. Proving anything true is logically impossible.
That is an impossible level of evidence for every scientific theory. Proving that a theory perfectly explains every possible case that it describes is beyond the scope of science.