Quick Thought on Evolution

This just passed through my head (as a lot does - mostly wind) in regards to Evolutionary Theory. Please let me know if anyone else you know of has thought of it previously or if there are flaws in my logic or if it is unclear, which I am positive it will be - this is quickly thought out and quickly written:

One of the most pivotal of Evolution's tenets is that of Natural Selection. Creationists do not argue Natural Selection insofar as it describes "the survival of the fittest," or "adaptation over time" but do make the point - and a very valid one I do believe - that Natural Selection cannot create information, merely weed out that which is useless or, at least no longer used (or not needed in a specific location at a specific time, e.g. long fur coats in the tropics). Creationists and ID'ers note that all change from any one species to another within the same family ("Equine Poppa" to horse, zebra or donkey) is a loss of genetic information. One may find a useless fin here or there, but its always on a fish, never a tapir. Men have nipples, yes, but it would look mighty funny if we didn't. My point is, we see useless things occasionally, but never something that actually bears tremendous potential. Natural Selection supposedly gets rid of what we do not use therefore "whittling us up" to ever slightly larger potentials by whittling out the unused or unprofitable.

This point pops up a lot in discussions, and rightly so. There is no proof whatsoever of any mutation ever giving us a gain in information. Sorry, Wolverine's "healing factor" remains in the realm of comics and Hollywood. What has popped into my head is that, well, even if something terrifically useful were formed by mutation/chance/alien space bats it's usefulness would be in direct proportion to how much it was put to use. We don't see bumblebees with wings that, aeronautically speaking, could allow the creature to fly at hundreds of miles an hour but the creatures just don't do so... that seems ludicrous and real evolutionary scientists would tell you that just isn't the way evolution works.

One might say, but look at the potential the human body has! Look at the human mind! We only use 10 to 20 percent of that! Think of the potential! [Editor's note: the 10% theory is a myth - but I don't think it means "power" so much as "potential" anyway.]

Bingo.

We might see chimpanzees who can be taught to ride a bicycle, but I don't know any chimpanzees that can make a bicycle. Ironically, the human mind is far more powerful than any of us know (or possibly can know), and certainly if it were to come about during a thousand millennia through chance, adaptation and environment, it would still not be the wonder we see now. Even by Evolutionists own standards, mutation and natural selection would only allow a brain of fractionally more potential that what we currently use.

How can Evolution therefore account for the sheer immensity of the human mind, especially in regards to its seemingly unlimited potential? The Creationist standpoint that the mind of Man was designed as such by a Being who wished to make Man in His own image does not seem so incredible now.