This then is an argument for ID.
So you're saying that:
1. If you had been correct in your original assertion that "breeders breeding via well-chosen sexual pairings for characteristics" had *not* been able to produce a new species, *that* would have been "an argument for ID".
2. Since you were wrong and breeders *have* been able to produce a new species, that *also* is "an argument for ID".
Fascinating...
Sort of trying to have it both ways, aren't you?
Hint: If both "A" and "not-A" can be used as supporting arguments *for* your position, then you screwed up your logic somewhere, and your position is actually independent of any evidence at all, and completely unfalsifiable.
And you were recently accusing *other* people of holding positions which were "not science at all"...? How ironic.