"Best" evidence for evolution.

Not to mention that it is just an example used at the end of this thread. In other threads examples of other dominant, not present in the base population mutations for dogs, cats, and humans have been discussed. The entire question about why only one example is chosen is completely bogus.

I don't have much problem with this answer. But accepting that this form of answer is okay, should we be surprised when a creationist fails to focus on one answer when we ask them a the corresponding question about the best evidence against evolution?

While that is true, arguments about the best evidence against evolution need not rise to the level of proof, they might just point to situations where the evolution explanation seems the most troublesome or questionable.For example, if I were to be asked about the best evidence that general relativity was not correct, I'd probably point to the need to point to dark matter to explain things that are not beyond the realm in which Newtonian gravity should apply. Of course that would not be proof, just an argument. I might next talk about dark energy and then about whatever my pet theory was regarding red shift quantization.I would not then have one killer piece of evidence, just a bunch of stuff about which I was highly suspicious.Similarly, there might well be questions for which evolution proponents have answers, but for which the answers are speculative or weak. It might well take a large number of such arguments to constitute a substantial argument against evolution.Now admittedly, the last person to react to the one best argument question spouted a bunch of Bible verses and PRATTs, but maybe someone else could do better.