[Dimensio]

How is a tan mouse any different than a brown one? What's the big deal here?

It's an example of selecting for a specific genetic variant within a species based upon environmental factors, similar to the peppered moth study. This is somewhat important because it does show that mutations can be beneficial (the genetic variant is caused by mutation) and because some creationists -- either through dishonesty or ignorance -- claim that the peppered moth study is a hoax either in its entirety or in its conclusions. For example, gore3000 claimed that the peppered moth study is held up as an example of speciation, even though he's yet to provide a single reference that presents the study as such "proof" (he then lied about me, claiming that I'd made a statement to the effect that I'd never heard of the study, when I backed him into a corner on the issue).

[plusone]

Fair enough. And I agree that natural forces will force a species to adapt to its environment. I beleive in, what is called 'micro evolution'. But it is a huge leap to suggest that such small changes will result in a species transcending into anothr, and over long periods of time, will become something entirely different. This is my complaint with 'macro evo'n', that there seems to be no proof of it. Micro, yes, we can see this. (Selective breading has been going on for thousands of years, and though it is ID, it still shows what variance there exists within a species. But that is all. There is a certain amount of 'free play' within the genetic structure that allows this partial divergence, it is how a species can adapt. It is what Darwin saw with the finches on the Gallopagos. But this is just adaptation, varietization, etc. How do you go the next big step and link this to general, macro evo'n? What evidence is there to support such a claim?

[Geritol]

You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding.

[js1138]

...when I backed him into a corner on the issue).

I'm still waiting for him to apologise for the false bibliograpy on Stephen Gould.

[gore3000]

It's an example of selecting for a specific genetic variant within a species based upon environmental factors, similar to the peppered moth study. This is somewhat important because it does show that mutations can be beneficial (the genetic variant is caused by mutation)

The above shows the sophistry of evolution. On the one hand you admit that the coloring of the mice was selected from already existing genetic information in the species. Then you claim it is a mutation. One contradicts the other. All species have a wide genetic pool and all that selection does is decrease the size of the genetic pool of the species and this is not an advantage but a disadvantage. For example, if humans were to plant these places and change the land the genes for browness would no longer be in the genetic pool of these mice and they would dissappear. This is the problem with selection as an agency of evolution, it does not create, it destroys part of the genetic pool of the species and makes it less likely to survive when the environment changes again.