"... all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." - Gerald Kerkut describing what he called the "general theory of Evolution". (1) This is what is shown by the first diagram in the above image. You can see that it has trees connected to insects connected to dinosaurs etc. All of these are connected to one focal point, the magical, self-created single celled organism that apparently didn't care about the scientific law of biogenesis. According to Evolutionists, this is how we got here. Gradual modifications over many generations until one era, human beings appeared, fundamentally different from our distant relatives, but related to them nonetheless. This is called the Evolutionist tree of life.
The second diagram is the Creationist orchard. Contrary to popular belief, Creationists do not believe in the fixity of species. Even before Darwin, Creationists like Carl Linnaeus and Edward Blyth (the latter of whom may have significantly influenced Darwin's theory of Natural Selection) wrote about how species changed. Creationists, therefore, have always believed in some form of change. What is actually disputed isn't that things change, but how. It is the type of change that matters. According to the Bible, living organisms were created to reproduce "according to its kind". That means an unspecified number of archetypes were created (two, in the case of human beings), and they were to reproduce things similar to themselves. A global flood also exists in this model, which significantly reduced genetic variability, but not to the extent where species do not change.
So which view does the fossil record support? The Evolutionist tree of life, or the creation orchard? It supports the orchard. There are significant absences from the fossil record that would be required in order for the Evolutionist tree of life to be firmly established. Even within the individual branches, there are many missing links. I remember laughing at a video of Richard Dawkins stood next to a whale Evolution chart. The chart tried to link whales and hippos by lining up several animals Evolutionists think were ancestral to both, but the most important part of the tree, the trunk, was missing. They were linked by a ghostly figure.
Evolutionists talk a lot about common ancestry, but the supposed common ancestors of all of the trees are missing. They argue hippos and whales share common ancestors, the common ancestor isn't there. They argue humans share common ancestors with apes, but that's missing, too. It's all missing, because it never existed. Everything in the fossil record appears suddenly, with nothing to connect it as a giant tree.
The most hilarious example of this is the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". In the mythical geologic column, the Cambrian era is when multicellular organisms increase rapidly. Uno problemo: all the major phyla (groups of organisms that share a common body plan) known today are found in the Cambrian, with no Evolutionary ancestors. The Cambrian explosion is so named because of the sudden appearance of all the major phyla. Evolutionists acknowledge that they all seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously.
In other words, although Evolutionists cling so strongly to their tree of life, and they certainly won't admit explicitly that the fossil record supports the Creation orchard, they understand that it does. Their only solution to this problem is that the fossil record is supposedly incomplete. However, there is no reason to assume this. It's circular reasoning. The fossil record certainly lacks a few fossils, but the only reason to claim it's so incomplete that we shouldn't expect it to demonstrate Evolution is if we assume that Evolution happened in the first place. The fact that the fossil record currently demonstrates the creation orchard more than the Evolutionist tree of life should enable us to comfortably accept the former over the latter.
References
1. Kerkut, Gerald A. - Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (link)