Continuing the discussion from Michael Behe's "Billiard Shot" model:
Indeed, but there are several more things you’re not considering. You appear to be reflexively trying to defend an assumption that I’m questioning instead of being scientific.
I don’t see any reason to consider that. Are you really trying to claim that none of the ancestors of these mice have ever lived among colors darker than beige? If so, how do you know that?
Only for the one population studied. They don’t know about the other populations they mentioned. Is there only one locus that controls the black/yellow switch?
Here’s a black C57BL/6J mouse:
Here’s a C3H mouse:
If they have pups together, will they be black?
That’s simply false. See Figure 1A. They caught one black mouse on the light rocks at Pincate.
Even if you weren’t misrepresenting the data and the frequency had been 0 of a massive sample of 43 mice, why would that suggest that the mutations were new ones?
Yes, but that says nothing about whether the alleles were around before or after the selection or whether other loci were involved. You might want to reconsider whether your assertion about black being dominant is generally true.
A unique allele. You’re trying to establish that they mutated after the populations diverged, remember? That’s the only fact even suggestive of new mutations; it doesn’t necessarily follow from that fact, but I suspect you know that or at least suspect it. They also could be caused by founder effects in small populations descended from a much more polymorphic population.
None of the four things you allegedly considered, even leaving out the things you didn’t, demonstrates anything of the sort to this mouse geneticist. Can you try to explain more and assert less?