Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

I've always been good at science but evolution never made any sense to me. They could give all these little tiny details (probably didnt mean anything anyway), but I could never get over the major flaws.

I have said on this thread (only half-joking) that the best argument for evolution is that no-one can think of an argument against it. If you will produce your top 5 "major flaws", I shall be happy to demonstrate this fact.

While much condescending and generic Creationalist bashing is evident here, even accusing them of being illiterate, the most fundamental factors have been avoided by Evolutionists in this thread. This indicates a tunnel vision, akin to a Talibanic dogma, which uses manipulative and unsustained premises to evidence their claims.
Firstly, the most vital part of evidencing Evolution is not in the minute research conducted - but the conclusions derived from it. Now this path can go cyclical and use up much posts and energy, and determine nothing conclusive. An Evolutionist is NOT going to ever say, GEE SORRY, I WAS SO WRONG! Forget it - they are today more dogmatic than any religionist they ridicule, but remain in denial of it.I would get around the minute details which evolutionists love to point to - and thereby derive at runaway unconnected conclusions - by asking those questions which must be evidenced well before reaching the research stage. Here's one fulcrum issue:

Q 1: Is Evolution a verified 'constant' - and is this a universal constant, or a localised one which effects only one planet?

How can one discuss a phenomenon without a definitive preamble of its status!?

Ice, the conclusion does not fit the research here. Let me point out the glitch in your analogy. Replace the exam paper 'error', with say a 'comma' being common in the two papers, but not necessarilly in the same equal locations. Would you still conclude as before? Of coz not!Now see that a certain virus with a specific signature (reverse mode rna-dna action), attacked numerous life forms (different species)- and let us assume also that the 'retrovirus' strand on all life forms is from an equivalent same source and period: would you still conclude that cross-species is proof positive here? No you cannot when seen in this perspective, anymore than deeming a 'hair' folicle on two different animals as proof. That a virus is embedded in dna, and a hair on the skin, does not change the principle of the logic - the equity of its spacetime does not prove a direct cross-specie subsequence. The issue becomes more encumbent when we are told this virus imprint remains intact - which means it is still around now, and can attack an oak tree or a zebra, and perhaps even some food left open in a kitchen table.It may sound arrogant to question findings by the scientific community's minds and determinations, but these kind of 'poor' logic in conclusions are rampant, and a constant source of disputations in the science fields. Research and the conclusions derived by science is not always in sync; chess players make poor war generals.There is a huge mindset today which deems the odds for life outside the earth as very 'positive'. One of the reasons sited is the vastness and variety of the universe. But this is poor maths: the vastness and variety actually negate the odds and render the equation as 'NEGATIVE' for life out there! This is true to the extent we can safely conclude the probability of life outside earth is close to nil: the maths says so.

LOL. Your getting desperate:

what else did you think? I was born crying in english.

The approach needs to be multipronged, and I don't think there is any one most convincing evidence. rather it is the overwhelming weight of ALL of the evidence that is compelling.

What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject?I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting.

Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras/