Even if it were proven that there are no transitional fossils between the major groups such as Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals, the concept of Evolution could still survive. It would be said that Amphibians are transitional between, Fish and Reptiles, and that Reptilies are transitional between Amphibians and Mammals. The lack of transitional fossils between Fish and Amphibians could be explained away based on either poverty of the fossil record or some sort of rapid evolutionary process.
The key to falsification is the heirarchical structure. If the fossils were in no logical, heirarchical order, then evolution would be falsified. I'm not just talking about transitional fossils. I'm also talking about the order of the fossils in the strata. The same is true with DNA. If there was no decent with modification (replication with mutation), then evolution would be falsified. The world would have to be much different than it is today for the concept of evolution to be falsified, but the fact is that it is most definitely falsifiable.
Based on another interpretation of evidence one could just as easily say: "There's no getting around the fact that transitional fossils have not been found. The lack of transitional fossils do not falsify Evolution, though. It only provide evidence for creation."
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the observation of transitional fossils does not provide evidence for or against creation. This is a common misunderstanding of how evidence works. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation and vice versa. Each theory has to stand on its own evidence.
However it might be better to combine both views and say: "The possible existance of transitional fossils falsifies creation to the same extent that the possible lack of transitional fossils falsifies evolution."
The existence of transitional fossils does not in any way falsify creation. A lack of transitional fossils or a different ordering of transitional fossils would definitely falsify evolution.
However most major creationist organizations do not believe that the fossils were laid down during the creation period, but that the fossils were laid down during the later flood. Thus there is no requirement that the two match in relative order. The requirement then becomes for the fossils to match with the flood stages. (I know that you don't believe in the flood, but please try to understand my point here.)
See how a falsifiable theory suddenly becomes non-falsifiable? As soon as you use the ad hoc explanation of the flood (which has no verifiable evidence) the creation theory goes from falsifiable to non-falsifiable. This is the whole point of what I've been talking about when I say that only falsifiable theories are worthwhile ones.
The modern theory of creation is seriously supported by thousands of scientists
If they support a theory of creation that is dependent upon a global flood, then their theory is not falsifiable. This is just one example.
Sure, the heirarchical structure of life could be used to strengthen certain theories of evolution, but you'd have to explain how and why a non-heirarchical structure would falsify or at least weaken the theory.
Because the heirarchical structure of life is the whole foundation of evolution. Evolution does not work without it because evolution is decent with modification. If it worked any other way it would not be evolution.
A theory being falsible doesn't mean that it is true, but only that it has the potential of being proven false. Falsibility cannot directly take us to the "true origin" of life, it can only show us where we may be wrong.
A falsifiable theory also means that we can learn other things from the theory. Again, what diseases has the theory of creation helped us to cure? Since creation is not a falsifiable theory it has not contributed to our modern base of scientific knowledge. It's basically a theory that has done us no good. Evolution, on the other hand, has benefited us in many ways because it is consistent with reality and makes accurate predictions. (See how this comes full circle?)