If my responses seem to cover many different areas it’s because the theory of evolution contains uncertainties in many different ways.
For example, natural selection is logically flawed in that it conflates agency with environment and it contains a consistent ambiguity regarding the problem of survival. That is, for the mouse is the hawk the problem or is the mouse’s fur color the problem? If the fur color is the problem, the agent of solving the problem is the in the mouse’s genes, not in the environment.
As to your mouse example, to the individual mouse the hawk represents a direct existential threat, i.e. he may get killed and eaten. To the mouse population, the presence of hawks serves as a benefit; hawks remove the slower, non-cryptically colored, or otherwise less capable mice from the gene pool, improving the overall survivability for the mouse population in the presence of hawks. Now imagine two different substrates, one sand and another duff - in the sandy environment a lighter colored mouse will be favored for survival, but in the other situation, a darker mouse. The mice are the same species, but their phenotype varies by environment. If the environment were to change, the mouse population will adapt to the change by favoring the individuals most likely not to be eaten.
Covering a lot of areas—as you say—is not a problem; however, what I DO find a bit irksome is that after each time I respond to you with some data, you totally ignore it and throw something else out.