Mutation is in fact harder to explain. See my post to jar above. There is something very very weird about the idea that it was a mutation instead of built-in for the reasons I give there.
You know the dark allele is dominant, right? So if it had existed before the early nineteenth century then don't you think someone would have noticed it? And if it was magicked into existence by God In The Beginning, then wouldn't 6,000 years of natural selection have removed it from the gene pool before pollution made it beneficial?
You either need many same or similar mutations at the same locus to counteract the constant loss to predation, which doesn't fit with the general observations of mutations as random accidents of replication, or you have to count on one mutation surviving against ridiculous odds, or showing up so exactly at the right time that only a teleological mechanism could explain it. Not what the ToE normally has in mind.
This is more or less incomprehensible. What you actually need is for the mutation to show up and be favored by natural selection. Mutations occur, and natural selection would have favored this one. Any questions?
If there is any reasoning behind your false trichotomy, you have failed to demonstrate it, though I'm gonna guess that the Sharpshooter Fallacy is involved somewhere.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)