Indeed. Mutations create new things, and natural selection eliminates the vast bulk of mutations, those which are harmful to the creature or hinder its ability to reproduce.
Anyone can see how natural selection operates: if creatures leave offspring, and some creatures leave more than others, then those "winners" will leave more of their genes. It has even happened to human beings in historical periods (e.g., sickle-cell anemia recessives becoming common after at least 3 separate mutations in different populations, in response to the rise of malaria).
Well, that is the 'revised' version of evolution, but it does not work either. We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities. There is a famous example which shows the problems with the mutation theory brilliantly, it won a Nobel Prize for its discoverer. A mutation in a developmental gene resulted in a fly with a second set of wings replacing the stabilizers the fly had. Now the evolutionists claim this as proof of evolution however it proves the opposite. The fly needed the stabilizers. The second set of wings was totally useless because the mutation had created just wings, it had not created the support system necessary to make those wings useful. It is so with any function in an organism. It takes more than one thing to make a new function, therefore any mutation creating a new feature, even if it could be beneficial under the proper circumstances, will not be beneficial because the new feature will in all cases require a vast support system which in no way could have happened at random.