I see you ran away from addressing my point. Since Darwin produced the theory in its original form, an entire new line of independent evidence has emerged that not only confirmed it but is so strong and comprehensive, we could make the case without any of the evidence that Darwin used.
One moment you say evidence isn't experiment and the next it is.
Evidence creates hypothesis, not theory. Evidence by definition supports the paradigm because we reason in circles. All evidence has always supported state of the art because this is the way consensus works for
homo omnisciencis. If you interpret it in any other way you are an heretic and not be a Peer no matter the logic, experiment, and fact that underlie your argument. In the past someone, an expert, would at least try to explain to you why you're wrong but this happens only in the hard sciences now days. Certainly biology is in most ways a hard science but there are aspects (like Evolution) that are soft science. As I said before computer modeling can be "hard technology" but it can never be hard science and can never underlie theory. THEORY DEPENDS FROM EXPERIMENT; Not observation, not mathematics, and not computer modelling. And most assuredly not by contemplation of the fossil record.
I say homo circularis rationatio and you say potato.
You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off
But oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart