First problem. You cannot separate natural selection from evolution. Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolution.
"Naturation selection" is the filtering of genes through generations due to the conditions in an environment. NS (NS=natural selection) can result in a general change of a species' appearance, resistance to disease, hair color, skin color, etc.
Natural selection is more than this. We could get these changes through genetic drift or simply the accumulation of mutations. Natural selection drives changes in a specific direction that makes the species better adapted to its environment. We know natural selection is occurring when we see certain genes becoming more common in a population and eventually fixed in the population (i.e. every member of the population has this gene in its genome, other alternatives have disappeared.)
However, natural selection cannot result in the changing of one species to another (we humans will not turn into some super robo human race simply by natural selection, which happens around us daily).
Under appropriate conditions, natural seleciton does result in the formation of new species.
Evolution is the changing of a species due to mutation, not NS. (but yes, the proliferation of this change is due to NS)
Mutation introduces new variation. Natural selection determines which variations will be ignored, which suppressed and which multiplied. The two work in tandem and cannot be treated separately.
One problem I see with evolution is the time required for it.
Why?
Just look at us humans. Look how different we are (different and equal, mind you)! If you think these thousands upon thousands of differences happens from mutation, I think you need to think about a few things. Of course, let me bring these things to the table.
Do you know what the average rate of mutation in the human genome is? Do you know the average number of mutations in humans?
Mutations occur by blind luck (or misfortunate, as in the case of CF). For this multitude of mutations to occur, there must be many many years of isolation to occur, years I don't think were there to begin with.
Mutations don't require isolation. You may be thinking of speciation which generally calls for some type of isolation until reproductive isolation is established.
For mutations to proliferent, the newly mutated useful gene must be needed (for NS to take place). If NS doesn't take place, then the change will not become widespread. If the change does not become widespread, the species will acquire the change as a whole, thus no change will happen.
This is very confusing and, I suggest, stems from a confused understanding of the processes of evolution. Mutations are always occurring. Natural selection is always occurring. It is never switched off. Natural selection does not necessarily spread mutations. It often isolates and weeds out mutations.
The last sentence is especially confusing. How can a species acquire a change as a whole if it does not become widespread? And how does acquiring a change mean there is no change?
Now my question to you is this, how do "small" changes like the shape of an ear, or the shape of one's lips come to be common to one race of us humans?
Presumably, when our ancestors lived in small tribal groups, there was more isolation between groups and they developed local variations. Breeders do the same thing with animals by controlling mating, thus creating artificial isolation between different groups.
How come we haven't seen a useful human mutation yet?! (I hope there isn't one documented... that would just destroy my argument)
Consider your argument destroyed. Some useful mutations in humans include increased muscle mass (family in Germany), near immunity to cardio-vascular disease (family in Italy) a new gene that provides near immunity to malaria without negative side effects (Burkina Faso), adaptations to high altitudes (in Andes, Himalayas) and adaptations to high latitudes (Inuit of Canada and Alaska).
My not-so-humble-opinions is this, that God, by whatever means he deemed necessary, put us on this earth as a race of people. However, he also gave us this gift called DNA, which allowed us to adapt to our environments using genes ALREADY IN OUR GENE POOLS (no mutation needed).
I am glad you say race of people. What you describe is physically impossible with just two individuals. However, we also know that mutations (changes in DNA) happen on a regular basis.
Now, it's true, mutations happen all the time, but tell me one that has helped the human race that we know of. Bacteria mutate all the time, but those can't be considered changes towards order. Those are changes of entropy (in the direction of disorder), even if they are helpful to their survival.
For humans, see above. As for "order" that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not an escalator toward some ideal Platonic form. It is simply change, especially adaptive change.
And if you are alluding to the Second Law of Thermodynamics you had better check out the scientific description instead of relying on creationist misrepresentations of it.
This also has lead me to believe that there is an end, proof that God isn't going to let us hang down here forever.
Scripture tells us that the earth was made as a habitation for humans. I don't think God has plans to change that. I do think he has plans for the earth and all its inhabitants which will be glorious indeed.
If all the changes/mutations that happened to our race are negative,
They are not. So the rest of your argument is moot.
