One of the most persistent problems for Evolution is the fact that Darwin's prediction that there ought to be "innumerable transitional forms" (1) has yet to be fulfilled. That hasn't stopped Evolutionists from trying, however, as they often line up several organisms they think share similar features and claim it shows their ancestral lineage. You can do the exact same thing to show the Evolution of a car, but whatever.
Evolution faces a much bigger problem than the inability to produce the innumerable transitional forms predicted by Darwin. Namely, if you could find them, you couldn't link them. If you find a fossil, you don't know a whole lot about it. You know it lived, you know it died, you know its size, but you don't know who its ancestors were, and you don't know who its children were, if any. You can no more prove a relationship between the three fossils in the horse Evolution series depicted in the above image than you can prove a relationship between two beloved family pets you find buried in the garden of the house you just purchased. It's all well and good to line them up and say "they look like they could share the same Evolutionary history", it's another thing entirely to prove it.
Evolution, therefore, not only lacks sufficient evidence to prove it, but it also always will. Even if it could, for the first time in over 150 years, fulfil one of Darwin's important predictions, that prediction wouldn't be proof. You're being told there are "mountains of evidence" for Evolution, but it is a religion for which all evidence is circumstantial. Weak, insufficient, irrelevant and lethal. It simply isn't worth putting your faith in such a religion.
References
1. Darwin, Charles - On The Origin of Species, 1859