Well the study pinned it down to a specific change in a specific gene at a specific time -- the year 1819 -- and a gene not normally associated with color.
Yes, but it didn't have to be that mutation. If another mutation causing dark pigmentation had arisen in northern England, we'd be talking about that one instead.
Then how is this "mutation" if it "comes along at the right time?" Is mutation a random accident of replication or is it an inevitable requirement of genetics? Which is it????
The point is that there are many different random accidents that can have the same effect. They don't come along only at just the right time. Some of them crop up at the wrong time, but then since it is the wrong time they are selected out of the population.
If you weren't all expecting to find mutations to explain everything, I wonder if you would find them.
If Adam and Eve were diploid, like all mammals, then they had no more than four alleles at any locus - two for Adam, two for Eve. And yet we know that there are hundreds of different alleles for some loci in modern humans. Mutation is a requirement of Biblical literalism.