[GourmetDan]

"It also has great predictive power; without the theory of evolution to use as a guide, I'm not sure how we would use evidence collected about, e.g., a metabolic pathway in one species to make predictions about a similar metabolic pathway in a different species."

Let's see. Metabolic pathways between dog and wolf, similar. Metabolic pathways between dog and fungus, dissimilar.

Yep, where would we be without 'evolution' to help us solve the deep questions of life...

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

A resource you might enjoy.

[exDemMom]

Of course. That's why Chapter 6 of Origins was titled "Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties" and Chapter 10 of Origins was titled "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record".

Unless you are an identical copy of your parent and you only have one parent, you are a transitional form. We all are. As are most organisms that live, have lived, or ever will live.

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.

Let's see. Metabolic pathways between dog and wolf, similar. Metabolic pathways between dog and fungus, dissimilar.

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. 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.