to be honest, the fossil record already has disproved evolution with the lack of transitional fossils that should be very plentiful throughout the fossil record. That just isn't so. Even Darwin himself said that his theory would not stand without the transitional fossils.
Let me start with a little prediction of what's going to happen from here. The standard template for the "no transitional fossils" dialogue.
To work then:
Ichneumon's "fish-to-elephant-in-50-steps-of-microevolution" post.
That in turn is distilled from Kathleen Hunt's Vertebrate Transitional Fossils FAQ.
A post I made once: What lack of transitionals? A few links have gone broken but I doubt you'll get far enough to find them.
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.
Also, I hope your reply reply will not follow the frequently repeated tactic of (Ahem!) misstating what Darwin said concerning what is truly to be expected from the fossil record. The works of Darwin are available on the web and are frequently cited in these discussions.
BTW, your screenie looks familiar. Have you forgotten some previous instance of being corrected on the matter of transitional fossils? That's always so dissappointing.
My first comment tells why I don't believe the fossil record as it stand has disproved Darwin. I think punctuated equilibrium is a reasonable theory, especially given the near-nonexistence of the fossil record. There is a mega-pattern in the history of the planet, which can be seen even in our own time: species extinguish other species, and the process is accelerating and the number of species getting fewer all the time. For long periods of time there was such a thing as an ecological niche--thus the stability and the seeming lack of transitional species. Now even the ecological niches are being obliterated. Take a huge step back and look at the whole thing.