The 2nd casts a shadow of a doubt so it was a coincidence. The 3rd time says, What is going on here? By the 5th time I would say that the mutations were not random.
This will seem to be too simple but it seems you're misunderstandings are on a very simple level.
If I roll a pair of dice and they come up 11, roll again and they come up 3, again and they come up 6 are they random?
If I roll 11, 3 and 11 are they random?
You are forgetting that there are billions of "rolls" involved in the case of the bacteria. Many do not produce a "win". The fact that one "number" comes up a 2nd or 3rd or 5th time doesn't show they are not random.
Why not attempt to form a more convincing argument for Darwinism by taking the IPTG out of the experiment?
Why not show that mice can not evolve by taking oxygen out of the experiment? This is as silly as your first argument.
Barry Halls statements don't say what you think they say but that is for another thread. "Limited evolutionary potential" has nothing to do with IC evolving or not. Please try to maintain some focus and stop thrashing about.
This experiment does not disprove microevolution. However, this experiment does not falsify intelligent design.
The topic is IC and if it can evolve or not. This experiment shows that it can. That is all that is involved.
If you think that intelligent design is falsified if the idea that IC can't evolve is wrong then ID is, indeed, falsified. I don't know how you make that connection though. It is also a topic for another thread.