Uh, come again? What the heck are you even trying to say with this?! Darwin's experiments, although extensive, were almost always focused on highly specific questions i.e. of morphological variation within and among species, variation in wild versus domestic animals (pigeons
Pigeons!!! You're going to use Darwin's work with pigeons to combat my argument?
Yes, Darwin was able to create pigeons with spectacular variations (huge fantails, bulging beaks- variations with feathers and tails). But despite all of these spectacular variations, the pigeons remained pigeons. They represent a cyclical change in gene frequencies but no new genetic information.
Another historic example is plant breeders trying to increase the sugar content of sugar beets. They did so from 6 to 17 percent over 75 years. But they could go no further (over the next 50yrs.). Why, because once all the genes for a particular trait have been selected, breeding can go no further. Breeding shuffles and selects among existing genes in the gene pool but breeding does not create new genes any more than shuffling creates more cards. A bird cannot grow fur and a mouse cannot grow wings.
No. I'd have to detect an argument first.