Minor revision- Editor implied to do the experiment, however a rebut would clarify the issue

Answer: Contact the editor and ask if they would consider a rebuttal.

Reason: Had a very similar situation: one of three reviewers wanted an extra experiment and the editor indicated we needed to consider running another experiment. We contacted the editor and asked if they would be willing in principle to consider a rebuttal rather than running an extra experiment. They said that they would consider it but would give us no guarantees other than that. We were successful: the reviewer backed down.

"Minor revision" only means "in principle accepted" if it's an "accepted with minor revisions". However, these minor revisions are usually seen as a must, and the paper can indeed be rejected if the editor or the referees (who may or may not get to see the revision) think that the points are not properly addressed.

Of course you can try to not do the experiment and write a rebuttal. It is possible that this will work but nobody can tell you what will happen.

If I try to read between the lines, it sounds like the editor is not totally positive about the paper yet, but I am not particularly good at reading between the lines. In the end it depends on how convincing the rebuttal is.

In a journal, "minor revision" can mean anything. Only "acceptance", not "conditional acceptance", "could be accepted", "address minor comments before acceptance" is really acceptance; any of these can be turned into a rejection, and I've seen that happening, both rightly and wrongly.

So, either have a very good argument why you do not need to do the experiment, or, if you can do it, then proceed to demonstrate convincingly that you took the comments seriously.