I believe I've read Alberts Molecular Biology of the Cell from cover to cover, but it's been a long time since I picked it or any other text book up. If one were studying cell biology, without trying to answer questions about species similarities--say, one's work is to define a specific metabolic pathway using a single system--then I suppose one could conduct such work without consideration of evolutionary theory.
My graduate work, however, was dedicating both to dissecting the pathway (the toxin response pathway that I mentioned in my previous post) and to trying to understand why it behaves so differently in different species (or in different human sub-populations). Others in the lab were trying to find the key players in other species. I'm not sure how we could even approach that work if we were to reject all of the tenets of the theory of evolution. It was through looking at homologies--which are both predictable by, and supportive of, evolutionary theory--that we were able to design PCR primers to use to successfully look for this protein (well, the gene for it anyway) in a species where it had not yet been found.
In the more recent past, I was assisting a gynecologist with papillomavirus research. Different strains of the virus hitchhiked with different migrating populations of humans; one of her favorite stories was to tell about how human migration can be traced through viral evolution. The idea that a virus--which can evolve much faster than an animal--would develop into different strains in geographically separate locations of its host is completely consistent with evolutionary theory.
My whole point is not that we're sitting around talking about how this or that evidence fits into or supports evolution; it's about how most of what some of us do does fit quite nicely within the theoretical framework--and so far, nothing yet has shown up that would falsify the theory.