That's because the actual fossil records reflects a tree of life that has in fact evolved. Every physics experiment we do likewise supports the conservation of momentum, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
If there were events in the real world that violated evolution--say, a creature that was half mammal, half fish, or fossils occurring out of order in well-dated strata--then the theory evolution would conflict with the evidence. We don't see that in the real fossil record, however.
"...If there were events in the real world that violated evolution--say, a creature that was half mammal, half fish, or fossils occurring out of order in well-dated strata--then the theory evolution would conflict with the evidence...."
Somehow, I have a feeling that such violations would be wildly acclaimed as 'transitional forms'...
"...Every physics experiment we do likewise supports the conservation of momentum, but that doesn't seem to bother you...."
Well, let me carry your analogy a little farther. At one time, Newtonian physics seemed pretty complete, because that's where we live. Approach the speed of light, however, and mass begins to do funny things. Likewise in a lot of 'steady state' situations, there are 'edge effects' so that a system near it's limits does not behave as expected. (From your screen name, I assume you know this, but I am including it for those who may not have your background, and to make sure my argument appears complete in print.)
Despite all our knowledge, despite all we think we know, we are talking about the distant past, here, perhaps as some of us believe, the beginning of time itself. Now, extrapolation near the edges may not be as we expect it. Our problem is that we cannot KNOW if that is so or not, but some insist we DO KNOW. I insist none of us do.
Evolutionists believe what fossils and their intellects tell them. Creationists, while some have intellects just as potent, choose to believe what our Creator tells us. Some of us are just more thoughtful and less confrontational than others.