First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.
Just because we cant explain something now doesnt mean we will never be able to explain it (you didnt give any specifics to argue against here). Humans are simple and really not very smart. It takes great effort over many generations (standing on the shoulders of giants) to figure out things that now seem simple to us.
Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?
The genetics of eusocial creatures have been well worked out. Especially in the case of insects (its easier when you can have clones or thousands of siblings), mammals are harder to explain (the naked mole rat for example) but still we know a lot about potential evolutionary benefits, think selfish gene here.
Third: (Genetics)
Genetic mutations don't occur that frequently. The DNA molecule is quite stable. For one creature to "evolve" into another it would have to have several members of the species develop the same mutation over the same period of time. If just one member does, then the mutation will have a 50-50 chance of it being passed to the first off-springs, and they would have a 25-75 chance of passing it along, their off-spring a 12.5-87.5 chance to do the same. The "defect" eventually diffuses through the gene-pool of the species.
This is simplistic. Some portions of our genome change very frequently and others dont, further we have multiple copies of many genes and which are activated is a gene-environment interaction that we dont understand very well yet. Many mutations can survive within a gene pool, even ones that dont have any beneficial effect. This is because they may associate with other genes that do have a reproductive benefit. In general what we think of as a species initiates through some kind of reproductive isolation, be it genetic or environmental.
Rarely, if ever, is a new gene or sequence of DNA created between a generation.
This is simply baloney. Where did you get this idea? (the "if ever" part especially, you need to define what you mean by rarely).
Cell mutation is generally LOSING gene information, having it corrupted as it is passed on. I dont see how any advantageous thing could come out of these mutations.
Again, who has been teaching you genetics? Or have you been making it up as you go along?
We are degenerating from the greater humans that preceeded us. And that is one thing that we can prove.
Now that is funny. Evolution is an always forward never straight sort of process. It isnt going anywhere in particular. In what sense do you think we are degenerating? What is a greater human?
But all good things come to an end, the nurturing will dissapear, and they will be in the harsh conditions, unprepared. And there goes the least corrupted programs.
No this is in fact a mechanism of evolution. As the environmental conditions change, different parts of the gene pool for a specific organism will benefit. Thus the gene pool shifts. If we happen to physically isolate what was originally one gene pool and then they experience different environmental conditions bang! New species!
With sexual reproduction you need several members of a community to develop the same mutation, in order to sustain the new species.
Again, you need to go back and read your genetics text over again. Why would this be? Who has been feeding you this line?
Where I draw the line is macro-evolution, ie that one species can evolve into another. I think it's entirely unrealistic, and as far as I know, goes against our current scientific knowledge.
No it doesnt. Current scientific thinking is that there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. The term macro evolution is really one that is useful for fossil studies but not genetic ones. To answer this more you need to define what you mean by species.
Though what I am saying is that a good mutation is very remote, almost impossible.
This is a value judgment and nature doesnt have any values. Its all about reproductive success, thats all folks.
Today we see people who are taller or stronger than us genetically, because over time we lost the genes that made us strong and tall. Colored-skin people retained the genes that give them their color, and the genes that give them better aerobic ability, which is why they whoop white people's a$$es in many sports.
Bizarre, the superficial traits that you mention are more strongly affected by environment than genetics. There are no individual genes that make us strong or tall. Even if there were it seems that it is more important to be smart than strong or tall if you are talking about the difference between modern humans and their ancestors. You should really look into the difference between genotype and phenotype as well it will help some of your confusion.
It is very likely that the reasons why colored-skin people whoop a$$es in many sports are overwhelmingly related to socioeconomics rather than genetics. There is currently no evidence to support a genetic link. There is no way to define race genetically. Here is a little quote for you to ponder:
If you sample two random copies of a random gene from two random human beings, there is about an 86% chance theyll be the same and a 14% chance theyll differ. If you sample the same way, but from two human beings of the same race, the chances are more like 86.5% and 13.5%. Practically all human genetic variation lies within, rather than between, racial groups.
Here is a link to a site where some of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforzas research is summarized (he is the head of the Human Genome Diversity Project). He is a great scientist and a great man.
http://www.balzan.it/english/pb1999/cavalli/paper.htm
His theory is that The bleaching of the skin was largely a consequence of the cereal diet, which, with a dark skin, causes rickets in northern latitudes. But not everyone agrees with that.
Interbreeding is now banned, because when two people have the same bad genes the bad genes can come to effect, or more of an effect than they were already affecting, and potentially disadvantage the child with mutations. Or even kill it.
Again a value judgment not imposed by nature. There are no bad genes except how they affect reproductive success. Human examples are problematic because we are so emotional and we have been able to buffer ourselves from our environment. If we look at this from a non-human perspective we find that there may in fact be an advantage to having a mechanism for generating additional mutations.
Have you actually checked the couples who have disabled children? According to your theory they should be short and white, being less corrupt, right? Well guess what - it has nothing to do with it. As to children by two family members, it's a completely differnet issue that has nothing to do with good or bad genes.
"Survive," even for the species, doesn't necessarily mean "breed.
