Oh, boy.....you really don't understand why invoking 'prove a negative' is a fallacy.
Here we go again;
Proving Non-Existence
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.
Logical Form:
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.
If you can’t, X exists.
Sheila: I know Elvis’ ghost is visiting me in my dreams.
Ron: Yeah, I don’t think that really is his ghost.
Sheila: Prove that it’s not!
Explanation: Once again we are dealing with confusion of probability and possibility. The inability to, “prove”, in any sense of the word, that the ghost of Elvis is not visiting Sheila in her dreams is an impossible request because there is no test that proves the existence and presence of a ghost, so no way to prove the negative or the non-existence. It is up to Sheila to provide proof of this claim, or at least acknowledge that actually being visited by Elvis’ ghost is just a possibility, no matter how slim that possibility is. - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence
''Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. Some philosophers hold that what one is justified in believing is entirely determined by one's evidence. This view—which sometimes travels under the banner of ‘Evidentialism’—can be formulated as a supervenience thesis, according to which normative facts about what one is justified in believing supervene on facts about one's evidence (See especially Conee and Feldman 2004). Thus, according to the Evidentialist, any two individuals who possessed exactly the same evidence would be exactly alike with respect to what they are justified in believing about any given question.'' - Stanford
