Really? EVERY detail? That's a majestic claim. Let's take a little look.
The assumptions come fairly early in the video:
The "four chemical letters in gene MC1R" are different in the dark mouse from those in the light mouse. Then comes the leap to the conclusions: a) this controls color; b) the color conveniently matches dark lava; c) the four changes are "mutations".
If four letters must change to get color differences, then there must be 4*2*4 = 32  different color possibilities, and possibly more depending upon the rest of the gene. Why just one, four element mutation? Why to dark coloration?
Further, the probability of four simultaneous mutations, all suddenly leading to a single, beneficial outcome, is functionally zero.
What are these actual probabilities? Who knows? Carroll does not. These are ignored.
Carroll assumes one mutation to dark color in 100,000 mice. But those births don't always occur in lava flows. So predation would take those born on tan sand. And tan mice would be predated heavily in lava flows, so dark mice would be unlikely to have been born in the lava. Further, the single dark mutation likely would get lost quickly in the gene pool, despite their graphics claiming otherwise.
The probabilities decrease yet again.
Are these even mutations at all? Or distinct classes of pre-existing types? As Cornelius Hunter points out , this is an example of
"..."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."Further, this is a specific error in logic:
"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 theory-suicide occurs at 8:10 - 8:53, where dark mice from other lava flows are examined for DNA mutations. The same mutation is not - NOT - found. Undeterred, they conclude that there must be many ways to make a dark mouse out of a light mouse. Of course, the proper conclusion is that they do not know what they are talking about, and they are faking their way through the fatal flaw in their theory: their assumption of color control by MC1R has been falsified. So any conclusions based on that false assumption are also false. Make that - FALSE.
It is clear that Carroll's "mutation" is a presupposition, not a conclusion as is advertised. And it also is not "proof" of evolution - especially not actual macroevolution which produces complex organs, metabolic machinery, feedback communication and control systems, languages, timing functions, multiple information over-coding of DNA molecules - or even the precursors: 20 left-handed proteins, oceans of enzymes, the many RNAs, the DNA molecule itself.
Like the Peppered Moth fraud, the mouse coloration claim is not - NOT - in any manner "proof" of evolution by mutation/selection. The claim that "when a dark mouse occurs, that is 'usually a mutation event'" is totally unfounded. It is presumed, presupposed, and not proven, and even disproven in their own video.
"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.Sean Carroll has not proven susceptible to any of Gould's "honest moments".
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."
1. 4 locations, 2 letters/location, 4 possible letters.