That's begging the question. A simple fallacy.
"Considering the primitive tools that Darwin had to work with (by today's standards), he really did an amazing job. For him to understand that there are physical limitations to the fossilization process, or that current geological processes destroy evidence of past processes is really impressive."
You said, "Of course, it was the plethora of such [fossil] evidence that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution. Without the abundant evidence, I doubt anyone would have come up with such a theory..." Your claim that the fossil record is what led to the theory of evolution was shown to be incorrect by 2 chapters in Darwin's own book. Darwin was predicting that the 'fossil record' would vindicate him when it was more complete. Now the fossil record is much more complete and he wasn't vindicated.
Of course, now he has scientists making excuses for the failure of his prediction, making the same claim and declaring it 'impressive'. "Well, the fossil record will always be incomplete." Just wow. Nothing but logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy. Evolution is a philosophy supported by fallacy. It is not science.
"I know you're trying to be dismissive of the actual use of the theory as a real scientist (me) applies it. However, understanding the different evolutionary paths that canids and fungi have taken is crucial for making "educated guesses" about what I should look for when characterizing the metabolic pathway in one species, if I already have knowledge about it in the other species."
You mischaracterize evolution. There is no 'knowledge' about where to look. 'Science' simply assumes an evolutionary 'pathway'. If 'science' is wrong when your 'educated guess' doesn't pan out, then you just change the assumed path. Evolution doesn't point you in any particular direction. All you are doing is applying pre-existing knowledge after-the-fact.
"There is nothing in creationist "theory" that would inform me as to whether canids and fungi have any metabolic pathways in common, much less what similarities and differences I should expect to see between those pathways.
There is nothing in evolutinary 'theory' that would inform you as to whether canids and fungi would have any metabolic pathways in common either, much less what similaritities and differences you would expect to see between those pathways.
I'm sorry, but repeating talking points from some creationist website is not the same as dissecting, from a scientific standpoint, the theory. How can a scientist possibly apply "pre-existing knowledge after the fact," when the whole point of science is to reveal new knowledge?
There is nothing in evolutinary 'theory' that would inform you as to whether canids and fungi would have any metabolic pathways in common either, much less what similaritities and differences you would expect to see between those pathways.
Really? You are so sure of that? I'm so glad I have you to tell me that the methodology I've been using throughout my whole entire scientific career doesn't actually work.
How about, instead of repeating creationist talking points, you try to learn (objectively!) something about the theory which you are trying to discredit. The only way to legitimately discredit it is through understanding it.