No, they provide a few examples. That's not evidence. See, the examples are there to imply that these alleged "patterns" actually are common solutions to common problems
A pattern is a recurring thing.
If they provide multiple exmaples of where the same thing has spontaneously and independently occured then that is pretty much by definition evidence for a pattern.
There is no reason to believe that "patterns", by their definition, exist at all.
They occured multiple times independently, ergo they exist.
There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" they present are representative.
They occured multiple times, therefore in those cases, they are representitive.
There is no reason to believe that the problems the "patterns" are intended to solve are common.
You have the all too common misconception about what patterns are. You ascribe agency to them where none exists. Patterns are not intended to do anything. They are a mere observation of the way people solve problems. It is the observtion that many design problems in computing have similar structure and many of the solutions to the sub problems are more or less the same in their structure.
A pattern does nothing. It is not intended for anything. It is an observation of how people solve the same problem.
There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" are common solutions to said problems. (How often the "solutions" are used compared to alternatives)
Well, they are common within the set of examples.
All because no actual research has been done!
Except they went and looked at a bunch of examples and found all those things within them.
You can debate whether the examples are representitive if you like. That's fair. But to deny the observable fact that they did actally do research is about as stupid as denying the observable fact of evolution. Then again, we gat a lot of those on slashdot too. Are you one of them by any chance?
Of course, if you think a couple examples is sufficient evidence,
18 pages of citations is more than a couple of examples.
I can happily provide you with numerous examples of how the use of GoF patterns is harmful.
No shit! Many people (including you according to elements of your reply) seem to believe that patterns are things to be "applied". If you do that, then you will use them in wildly inappropriate places. If you believe that GoF is anything more than a taxonomy then you may as well also blame Samuel Johnson when you say something stupid.
When you figure out why you wouldn't consider that "evidence" then you'll understand why the "evidence" you present isn't.
You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "conclusions you agree with". You are really very like one of those anti-evolution people. You might also want to be careful to check those words in a dictionary. Make sure you only use one which agreed with your definition of "evidence".