Oh, as far as I can tell there’s lots. But first let me see if you agree with my definition of related scientific evidence. I believe there is a distinction here that often gets overlooked. I will refer to it as direct and indirect empirical evidence. The first is used in confirming a theory by either direct observation and/or experimentation.
Take for example the theory that ravens are blackish. Provided that’s true, that’s a theory I think we can all agree upon is pretty certain because it can be verified by direct observational evidence. We don’t have to take somebodies word for it, we can observe it for ourselves.
Now take the theory that all ravens that have their genes in tact are blackish. Now providing that is actually the case, that has to be inferred because it’s always possible that, besides ravens with gene mutations, it’s possible there is a species of raven that no one has observed that isn’t black.
This would be a case of indirect empirical evidence, the evidence being that, though not necessarily complete, every raven that has been observed is blackish. That’s what I understand as an inductive inference where there’s a pretty high degree of certainty based on the available evidence.
Now when we make theories about the past, for example, that aren’t directly accessible empirically, as I understand it, we usually move into an abductive inferences where indirect evidence is there, but somewhat incomplete, and therefor less certain.
Usually I think any inferences that deal with past events are of the abductive type, as are objects or events that are beyond direct empirical investigation, like subatomic particles. Now my question is, are you asking for direct empirical evidence, or are you including both direct and indirect empirical evidence when you say related scientific evidence?