Proving evolution?

[Angrboda]

That sounds like an equivocation.

I can't really help the way things sound?  I do get that when most people say "evolution" they mean a specific theory, but to then extend a falsification of a specific theory to mean that the observation of the thing it had hoped to explain is somehow invalidated is an effect of a subtle and probably unintentional equivocation itself.  It doesn't just sound that way, and it might even be why such clarification sounds like an equivocation?  That's just a hypothesis, that may not be why people make this mistake, but if there were some other explanation it would still be the fact that people do make this mistake.  Another simple example, this time by close analogy.  Finding that any given theory or hypothesis of gravity is false, would not change the way things are observed to fall.  

If rabbit fossils, world-wide, were found in a layer below trilobite fossils, then evolution would be falsified.

Not in the slightest, though it could..in theory... falsify some theories of how or when or in what sequence the observed changes occurred.  We do, btw, sometimes find fossils where they aren't expected to be.  Creationists tend to make alot of hay about these.

Scientific evolution is the idea that the change and diversity of life forms can be explained through naturalistic processes of variation with inheritance.  Evolution as 'change' is a completely different concept, so using both within the same breath as if they were the same is an equivocation.