It seems to me that your observation is from a single point of view, which is coloured by your understanding, you see the 'world' in the context of theories you already hold. Scientific theory should make predictions that can be tested, and the theory rejected if those predictions are shown not to be correct. Interestingly no matter how many observations are made which seemingly confirm a theory there is always the possibility that a future observation could refute it.
Technically, and philosophically, yes. But some things are so well known, examined, and long-time tested that we can fairly regard them as facts.
Evolution by natural selection is one such.
The 'theories I already hold' are the relevant facts. Let's get one thing straight: evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact. As such, it can be used along with all the other myriad scientific facts for at least two different things: to make predictions, and to provide explanations.
Evolution and breeding, and that includes (genetic) husbandry are two sides of the same coin, and both are understood in the language and context of the _selection of parents_.
That isn't to say we know all there is to know, in terms of fine mechanism. But....
To be husbandrymen, we don't have to - any more than plant and livestock farmers did 3000 years ago. They knew what worked. Darwin took that and turned it into an explanation for the origins of species, and.... Husbandrymen and breeders carried right on doing their thing.
This level is so simple that uneducated illiterates and village idiots can do it. It's nothing more than simple rule-following.
With a base-level understanding of breeding or evolution - either will do - we can make explanations and predictions about the effects of things on populations. We can make predictions that will require testing, and predictions that we can be confident about without testing - depending on the their nature.
This has been done, many times, in the scientific literature relating to honeybees. In a little corner there has been a discussion of the effects of apiary practices on honey bee populations, both wild/feral and captive. In that literature the base-level facts of evolution are both implicit, and, occasionally, explicit.
I'm not saying anything new here. I'm just saying things in ways that you don't recognise to be properly scientifically founded. You need to shift your focus, and go over the basics. That is, the bottom-level explanations concerning selective parentage, genetic husbandry.
