Evolutionists often cite this as supporting their theory but there are a couple of problems with it:
1. If the whole poulation had the trait then it would reproduce 1/4 less than other populations of the same species. (check out genetics 101).
2. Even bigger problem is that we have never found a population with as much as 50% of it carrying this trait. ( I think 25% or so is the highest). Now the question is, how does the rest of the population manage to survive malaria? If this mutation was the only way to survive it then it would exist in 100% of the population in malarial areas. Clearly there are other reasons why people survive malaria so this is not the reason for it. Let's note that the black death, one of the worst illnesses known, killed between 1/4 and 1/3 of Europe's population by all accounts, yet there was no 'immunity' to it in this fashion. Clearly, human beings have the ability to fight many diseases and survive, this is part of the inherent strenght of the genome pool of a species.
This statement is false. The CCR5 Delta-32 mutation confers immunity to bubonic plague, and moreover has the fortuitous side-benefit of conferring immunity to HIV. Research has established that the alleles emerged around the time of the Black Death in 14th century Europe. That's why Caucasian populations have a notably higher resistance to HIV than do Africans, by the way.
Unlike a creationist, I won't use this error as a comprehensive rebuttal to your various unrelated points. Not least because those easily collapse on their own demerits...