No, and this has been answered before. Why is it that you never digest the answers you're given and go on repeating things that have been shown to be false? Are you not interested in the truth?
The fact that genetic engineering now occuurs does not mean that it did in the past.
Even if there were agents capable of performing genetic engineering in the past (a completely hypothetical statement) that would not mean the they were in fact responsible for evolutionary change.
It would not invalidate natural selection. Only an inability to think logically allows one to think so. Both natural selection and genetic engineering can exist. Your argument is based on the premise that they can't, which is absurd.
No, my argument in those posts was based upon the condition for the absolute falsification of Evolution as given to me by Physicist. My argument dealt that condition a fatal blow. Your complaint about my argument being based on other premises is flawed. I can certainly understand why you made those complaints, but the real problem is that the condition for falsification was itself flawed.
To wit: Physicist really didn't mean what he said that providing an example of non "Natural Selection" speciation would refute Evolution. Of course it is easy to give an example of non Natural Selection speciation (and I did so), as it is being done in labs across the USA today.
Yet what else could I do. He gave his condition for falsification, and I gave the example that complied with it.
If his falsification condition was scientific and correct, then my example would have disproved Evolutionary theory (that's the nature of meeting falsification conditions, by definition, after all).
Ask yourself if my example met his condition. If so, and if Evolution still isn't disproved, then the problem exists with the falsification condition, not with my logic or example.
It also means that Physicist still needs to give a viable falsification condition for Evolutionary Theory, lest the theory be junked as unscientific...