(Snort!) Lest I taken for Doris Kearns Goodwin, I'll diligently research where I saw the answer to this one.
Here the estimable cracker writes:
"I see you have a nice collection of small pictures, arranged in chronological order, and affixed to a narrow strip of celluloid. An impressive display, but there is no evidence here. You claim these are moving pictures - but which picture shows the motion?"
The joke is cute, but misses the point. The evidence at hand is comprised of fossils in distinct stages. Scientifically, this evidence can support both punctuated equilibrium (aka Evolution) and Intelligent Design. It would take different evidence to refute either theory. If you can't produce different evidence, then you can't refute either theory, QED.
One could look at the various models of automobiles buried in junkyards and point out how smoothly some models changed from year to year, yet pretending that cars self-evolved without Intelligent Designers based upon that data would get you laughed out of any serious discussion on the planet. Likewise, the same can be said for drawing overly broad conclusions from our fossil data.