The simple answer is no.
Is there disproof of evolution?
The simple answer is yes.
As a science the theory disproves itself.
There are basically fourteen assumptions within the theory of evolution, this is not surprising because there are at least that many in Einstein's theory of relativity. What confuses must people is that these assumptions are not removed from the theory when observation insist they must be. This is called the scientific process; it is a process by which a repeatable observation supports the assumptions made in the developement of a theory.
It may be a scientific theory but it falls far short of scientific methods.
We need only to examine the fossil evidence to conclude that species appear rapidly throughout history to determine this assumption is incorrect.
There is no direct evidence to support this assumption. We can however hang on to this assumption with the support of a number of other assumptions and observations. I must point out however that these observations are conditional. One of these conditions is survival of the fittest. This of coarse can not be a one and only claim of evolution. Any number of theories can claim this assumption, what most do not understand is that there are only two theories out there. That of evolution and creation, there are no other arguements out there to debate.
This is one of my favorites, everytime I come across a new scientific paper claiming their research demonstrates the process of evolution I have to laugh. Their research shows nothing more than the process of parental preference. Conclusivily there is a loss of genetic information in every demonstration presented. If by chance there is a alteration of genetics it is always introduced cross species, with the end results demonstrating the preference of original genetic markings from the beginning of the experiment.
The second genetic argument is always viral or bacterial, none of which can demonstrate a mutation. This is only showing a survival technique which any theory can lay claim to. It does however support the second assumption, the one and only assumption of Charles Darwin that has survived to this day. This is a very small thread to hang a scientific theory on.
Most evolutionist claim that they do not claim to know how it all got started. Their methods are focused on how its all happening today and how things have changed over time. Again this assumption can not be exclusivily evolutional. If it is an example of evolution it must be supported by observation. Mathematically if evolution were taking place today we would see 1 to 8 new species per year. That is an observation missing in our theory. Let alone how it all began in the first place.
(Estimated one billion species have existed on the earth in over four billion years.)
The observation is that if it happened in the past why isn't it happening now? The mathematics are simplified to an extreme but our end result is not changed. If this process of evolution began it must still be around today. If not than the assumption is faulty and must be changed. The only conclusion is that something changed in the past to modify our original assumption. This mandates another assumption or a complete nullification of the entire theory.
I know and understand the assumptions, it is another matter to present it in a way that others can make a logical choice. If you absolutely do not want to believe the universe was created you must come up with a new theory other than evolution. I am sorry to say that you can not bring the two together either, you must choose between evolution or creation. One or the other is wrong, a compromise within assures that you would be wrong. Science looks for answers, what else is there in the universe than truth. The question is 'Is there truth in science?'
