Given Darwin’s theory of evolution, what scientific evidence best supports evolution by natural selection? Use?

the evolution of humans

Pretty much all of it.

Pretty much none of it. Evolution, as understood in its broadest sense, meaning goo-to-you, amoeba-to-ape, is not the same thing as Natural Selection. Natural (and artificial) Selection can be observed. We have different breeds of dogs. Lions and tigers are descended from the same 'big cat' type - they can interbreed to give Tions and Ligers. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/271/ The peppered moth example is not even natural selection - it was simply changes in population. And the evidence you see in most textbooks was fabricated anyway - the moths do not lie on tree bark during the day - the famous picture is a result of glued on dead moths. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1116/ Evolution is the hypothesis that animals can change into different kinds of animals by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations. These alleged mutations need to add genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy. 'But evolution is too slow to see' protest the evolutionists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable. So evolution is best described as the religion of secular humanists. It is easily refuted by the moderately diligent student. http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index Seriously - check it out. Vestigial organs absolutely do not support evolution. At best it shows devolution. Evolution needs to explain how these 'vestigial' organ arose in teh first place. In fact there are no such things. People used to teach that humans had 100 vestigial organs! We have since found the purpose of all of them - including the appendix. (the oft-quoted example.) http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans Fossils absolutely do not support evolution. The fact is, that the fossils show stais or extinction. The creatures fossilised are either the same as creatures still alive, or they are extinct. The fossil record does NOT show change over time. But don't take my word for it. here is what an evolutionist says: Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma: ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ He went on to say: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’ The fossil record is just what one would expect to find following the Global Flood: billions of creatures buried in rock layers, all over the world, laid down by water. With sea-creatures at the bottom of the layers, and amphibians and land creatures, which could escape the rising water for longer - nearer the top.

None of it

Natural selection is best supported by ecology studies and studies of individual species. Evolution is best supported by genetic studies and fossil evidence in addition to all the others listed.