First, your post was likely removed for attempting to reject a quite on-point criticism of Christianity with an appeal to the Bible, which would be utterly unconvincing on /r/atheism.
As opposed from the Bible, evolutionists state that humans evolved from animals from some years ago. Humans also gained intelligence from evolution.
Well, to correct, humans are animals, having evolved from other great apes, who evolved from other primates, so on and so forth down the evolutionary history. But so far so good.
The Bible says, God gave us superior intelligence than any other life, we even gained more when Adam and Eve ate the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil".
Yes, this is indeed what the Bible claims happened--although thus far we have not discovered any hard evidence that this actually occurred, nor any evidence to support the Bible in general as a reliable authority on reality.
If evolution is true, and humans came from evolution. See the ff: There is balance in nature. Humans abuse that balance.
These things don't follow to the conclusion of "evolution is wrong". First, there is no grand "balance" in nature, certainly not one that evolution has anything to do with. Evolution is simply the description of how life on Earth developed over history, with changing environments and pressures, going from simple, single celled organisms into the vast array of life we see today. Humans destroying various ecosystems and environments does not disprove evolution--evolution does not require a creature to live in harmony with its surrounding environment. Evolution (through natural selection) merely allows those best suited for reproduction and survival to pass on their genetics and continue the species into the next generation. Sometimes, this resulted in other species going extinct, or environments becoming drastically changed.
If evolutionists say that evolution is nature and vice versa, and we humans are part of nature, then why are we humans destroying Nature?
Evolution isn't nature, evolution is natural. Humans are indeed a part of nature, but that doesn't preclude us from "destroying nature".
With animals and vegetation, there is balance. Food chain, bacteria > carnivores > herbivores > vegetation > bacteria and the cycle just repeats itself. There is no abuse, there is no overkill.
This is patently false. There are abuses/overkills. Sometimes a species overpopulates an area, resulting in a mass extinction of its natural food source. Then that species must either adapt to a new food source or go extinct itself. Sometimes natural disasters wipe out scores of species, such as the dinosaurs. Sometimes species fail to adequately adapt to changes in their environment and die out. This is why, in the grand scope of the history of life on Earth, roughly 99% of species have gone extinct.
How, and why does this "last form of evolution" do such thing?
There is no such thing as a "last form of evolution". Humans are not the most evolved creature on Earth, as there is no such thing. Each species is simply the most recent iteration of a particular branch within the living organisms, and still are undergoing evolution. Certain traits get slowly weeded out--we can see this in humans today (look at the several vestigial organs and body parts in the human body, such as wisdom teeth, the tail-bone, and appendix). There is no end to evolution; no goal; no "perfect being" to be achieved. There is merely the most recent species.
Furthermore, even if we didn't have the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, we still have no reason to accept the creationism taught by the Bible. At best, if evolution was suddenly disproved tomorrow, we would be back at "I don't know". It's not a dichotomy between creationism and evolution.