Fake Science: Mice Changing Color to Match Terrain Is "Evolution, Crystal Clear, in Every Detail"
About 15 years ago researchers discovered genetic differences that probably explain the different fur coloring in desert mice populations in New Mexico and Arizona (see papers here and here). Mice populations living on light colored terrain tend to have light colored fur, and those on dark colored terrain tend to have dark colored fur. Blending in with the terrain helps to camouflage the mice, protecting them from predators.
And that is, apparently, exactly what the mice did about a thousand years ago when desert lava flows produced the darkened terrain. But that is where the science is overtaken by the dogma. Evolutionists have misappropriated this research work, casting it as a textbook example of evolution, and creating a video (above) to indoctrinate students.
The first problem in casting the dark colored mice as an example of evolution is that their genetic differences are not known to be the result of random mutations. For evolutionists there simply is no question that the genetic differences that are thought to cause the dark fur color arose from random mutations.
Now that may be correct. But it may not be. We simply do not know.
This is not merely a technical objection -- in spite of evolutionary theory which called for random mutations to be the source of change, in recent decades directed mutations have been found to be at work in an ever increasing number of cases. For many years evolutionists have ignored and even resisted these findings. Too often I have debated evolutionists who, when I point to this evidence, simply deny it.
So while the genetic differences in those dark mice may well be the result of random mutations, evolutionists do not even give this a second thought. They simply assume from the start, and inform their audience in no uncertain terms, that random mutations are the cause.
This is an example of what philosophers refer to as a "theory-laden observation." Science can get into trouble when the measurements and observations themselves, rather than being theory-neutral and independent of the theories which explain them, are in fact intertwined with those theories.
This can become circular very quickly, and this desert mouse case is a good example of that. Evolutionists assume the genetic differences arose from random mutations, and then claim the evidence as a powerful confirmation of evolution.
The second problem in casting the dark-colored mice as an example of evolution is that the dark coloration may be the result of multiple genetic changes. In one case, four mutations are identified, all of which perhaps are required to bring about the coloration change.
It very well could be that only a single mutation is required. But that is not known.
And if multiple genetic changes are required, then this quickly transitions from an example of what random mutations can do to an example of what random mutations cannot do. If four mutations are required, then we've just found yet another hard failure of evolution. But again, the evolutionists give no hint of this interesting question. If everyone had their "burning curiosity" (as Clarence Darrow put it) then science would have long since come to an end.
The third problem in casting the dark colored mice as an example of evolution is that the coloration is too precise. The dark colored fur appears on the top of the mice, but not their underbelly. This makes sense since the topside is mainly what is exposed to predators. But in the evolution narrative, there is no fitness advantage to such precision. Darkening the entire mouse would, apparently, work just as well.
So far, evolutionists are proclaiming a slam-dunk, case-closed example when in fact there are many unknowns.
But there is one big known we haven't yet mentioned. It would be a deceptive equivocation to label fur coloration change via a few mutations as "evolution" when, in fact, this is nothing more than small-scale adaptation.
In their "honest moments," as Stephen Jay Gould once put it, even evolutionists admit that random mutation isn't enough, and that adaptation mechanisms are not enough, to explain the kind of large-scale change evolution requires.
Mice changing fur color does not demonstrate how metabolism, the central nervous system, bones, red blood cells, or any other biological wonder could have arisen through random mutations coupled with natural selection.
This is an old technique evolutionists have exploited ever since Darwin. Demonstrate biological change, any biological change, no matter how trivial, and claim victory. Evolutionist Steve Jones once claimed that the changes observed in viruses contain Darwin's "entire argument." That is a gross misrepresentation of the science, and only serves to mislead audiences.
In the above video, biologist Sean Carroll states that thanks to these mice, "science has an example of evolution, crystal clear, in every detail" (6:42-48). It would be difficult to imagine a more absurd canard. Mice changing color is not a crystal clear "example of evolution ... in every detail." Not even close.
Cross-posted at Darwin's God.