Is there any evidence to support that taxation without representation does not justify the American Revolution?

This is a problem which has recurred throughout history. A bourgeois group, rich and influential,
a)...does not like paying taxes
b)...goes hunting for real power.

The result is that (not always by violent means) they seek to alter the status quo in their favour. The French and Bolshevik revolutions were made by the prosperous middle-class, using workers as cannon fodder. In the same way, the English mercantile class in the 17thC challenged the King (and eventually took over and cut off his head). The American Revolution/war of independence was no different.

The rich of the colonies, who were only too happy to be loyalists (many of them, including George Washington, actually held the King's commission as army officers) when it was a question of being defended by the British army against French aggression from the south, jibbed when it came to paying the bill for this defence.

Representation was only an excuse. It was not, at the time, normal or expected anywhere in the world. In most of Europe the subjects were not consulted about very much; least of all about taxation. Most of the British Isles had no, or only nominal, representation in Parliament, but still had to pay taxes. In any case, taxes in the colonies were light compared with those at home. No duties or tax on windows, alcohol or carriages, for instance.

The plain fact is that the American planters wanted to pay less, and rule more. They succeeded.

This was a principle which the colonists cited as reason why they declared their independence. In actuality though, had they been granted representation, it would not have made any difference in the outcome of the laws enacted to tax them, as they would have been granted only one or two representatives in Parliament, and those couple of votes would not have made any difference in the passage of those laws.

Not much. The only 'evidence' to support non-justification is the fact that at that time, approximately 50% of the colonist population were Pro-England. Loyal to the King. Mainly appointed dignitaries, property managers, and exporters and the personnel that worked for them. The remainder were anti-England. But they were really anti-any foreign power who wanted a 'piece of the American pie'. The anti's, as you know, did win the revolution. Lucky for us.

Violence has solved lots of things.

Violence never solved anything?