Patterns and Tautologies (The Circular Logic of Homologies)

I'm a recent convert to evolution(within the past 45 days), and a large part of what led me to abandon Creationism was homologies like the bat's wing and the cytochrome c protein.
Keep in mind, as a devout creationist, I had no reason to base my decision to accept evolution on circular logic. The evidence simply fits evolution so perfectly that, as a man devoted to truth, I had no other choice but to change my beliefs on the issue.Just as an example, I find cytochrome c an amazing protein because its structure of about 100 amino acids can be varied in an innumerable number of ways while still retaining it's essential function: the transport of a single electron.
As I understand it, nearly all animals use this protein, and it's structure does indeed vary greatly between different kinds of organisms. This fact isn't remarkable, however, until one considers that organisms which are closer on the evolutionary tree always have more similar cytochrome c than those which are farther apart. To me, the best explanation for this is common descent.Of course, in order to come to this conclusion, I had to make a reasonable assumption that the cladistic data provided by cytochrome c analysis best fits evolution. This is not circular reasoning, it's normal human decision making.IMHO, all it would take to shed some doubt on evolution would be to find a species of worm with a cytochrome c indentical to human cytochrome c. Nothing like this has ever been found. Homologies consistently confirm evolutionary theory. Such a find would definitely be "our rabbit in the Precambrain."

I think these retroviruses pose a special problem to creationists. To begin with, I will assume that, according to standard YE creationism, God created these viruses along with everything else, and they served a purpose, perhaps as a source of genetic variation.In order to account for the homologous virus sequences in the genomes of closely related species, creationists must either assume that(1) chance alone produced them, or(2), God himself is responsible for these genetic homologues.The obvious question is why God would purposely give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word if He didn't desire us to believe in evolution.As far as chance goes, someone would need to figure out the probability of these homologues arising by pure chance. I'd guess the odds are pretty slim.Is there any circular logic in these conclusions? Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

I don't trust it anymore.

quote:

---

You are assuming that God gave us the evidence. God didn't give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word, the Father of Lies has left this evidence to lead man away from God, and it is working.

---

Funny, I've actually heard that argument from my family. It's the only argument they seem able to fall back on when I present the cold hard facts. \If I say that "the Bible is infallible and any facts which contradict it must not be true," I'm using circular reasoning--this isn't acceptable for rational people. Which is why I can't think like that anymore.

quote:

---

You do also know that circular reasoning also applies to Jesus as Messiah, LORD and Saviour?

---

To some degree, yes.

I would say unprovable rather than circular. What's missing with all that stuff is hard evidence. It's very hard to prove something that happened 2,000+ years ago, especially when it concerns miracles.But I suppose it would be circular to believe something from the gospels, since one must assume they are true in the first place before they can be taken as truth.BTW, isn't this off topic?Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

Go right ahead. I think it would be a very interesting topic for discussion. However, as someone who until now, relied as much on Jesus as I do the pumping heart in my chest, I already understand how foolish such blind faith is.