There’s a difference between a lack of a fossil record and a fossil record inconsistent with evolution. Imagine an ID supporter from the 1860s. Perhaps they might have argued that faunal succession was an illusion caused by insufficient sampling, and predicted that it would have gone away as more and more fossils were unearthed. Needless to say, that prediction would have failed.
I don’t think that you did. (You’d need a bigger data set to do that.) However, I wrote correlation for a reason. The theory of evolution does not predict a perfect nested hierarchy - convergence and randomisation, missing data, rate variations, paralogy, and lineage sorting, and a variety of other factors can lead to misinferences of phylogeny. But we don’t get different data sets with one saying we are closest to chimpanzees and another saying we are closest to chestnuts and another saying we are closest to cod and another saying we are closest to chestnut mushrooms and another saying we are closest to chickadees and another saying we are closest to chipmunks.