And yet I have explained to you at least five or six times, in concrete detail, why it is NOT a circular theory. You refuse to engage with this, you don't respond to it, and then like a stuck record you go back to your "circular" nonsense.
You deny being a creationist but I don't believe you. You have been given ample evidence and argumentation, including outside links to detailed resources, that ought to have cleared up your confusion by now. I can only conclude that your alleged confusion is really just an agenda, as Harbal said.
Like any theory, evolution can be questioned. There are dozens of ways it can be falsified. Yet none of these falsifications succeed, whereas there is a mountain of evidence for evolutionary theory; and, of course, evolutionary changed is observed to take place.
If you had read one of the links I had given you (I don't believe you read any of them) you would have seen a robust discussion at a biochemist's blog about the role of neutral evolution vs. selection in shaping phenotypes. This remarkable discussion became even more dramatic when Richard Dawkins himself joined the discussion in the comments section. So there are live controversies within evolutionary theory -- but there is no doubt that the theory itself is correct.
But, as Harbal says, this is a waste of time.