The mice “experience” that they are in an environment of a different color. Coincidentally, or so it seems, they evolve to take on that same color. And it also seems that epigenetic mechanisms may turn out to be one way in which the effects of such experience on an organism can be heritable.
So we have here a physiological change that seems to have been dictated by experience and with an eery specificity to the organism’s observations. Of course we don’t know if the selection process was epigenetic. But we know, or should know, there is a selection process here that has little to do with the type of choices involved, conscious or otherwise, in adapting to new or different food sources.
Assuming we know that choices are involved at all, or know a particular example of hypothetical behavioral changes would have relevance to physiological changes because we have a sufficient understanding of the nature of biological choice.
But then where an ultimate denial that choice was involved in the process at all, even though the organism’s experience clearly was, would seem to belie the notion of such an understanding.
Leaving one free to see relevance in the web of causality without any purpose to the singling out of a particular section or strand.

I think it is exceeding unlikely in fact, the chances that a mouse will just happen to have find itself in an environment in which its new diet will just happen to have the effect of changing its colour to the colour which will be advantageous in that particular environment is exceeding small. If you recall, the only reason i started out on that track was to give you a little support in your contention that what an organimsm does (chooses) in its life can influence its (or at least its offsprings) phenotype without the necessity of a random mutation.

If you can not understand that , read the article.

I think its much more likely that a traditional random mutation/ natural selection type explination is correct in this case (as i have already stated).

That’s it. My last comment on the subject.

If i have badly erred in my simplified explinations of epigenetics and adaptive mutations please do tell.

I am a practicing scientist but have had my students point out my own mistakes before.

I would guess that no one (including you Artful) is really qualified to talk definatively about these issues as none of us is involved in research in this precise area.

An attitude of intellectualy superiority will thus not get you very far, particularly with a crowd such as this, who are also likely to have more than a passing familiarity with science and are likely to be on the higher side of the IQ scale. Best of luck finding a more hospitable venue.