I thought the fun and games would start ...

1st
I thought the genetic, inherited camouflage colors used by animals had a direct correlation to the color of the 'sticks' in their environment.

Possibly the lamest piece of apologetics I've seen in some time. Not least because you picked completely the wrong example to try and peddle your apologetics.

Zebra stripes are not "camouflage", they're disruptive colouration, aimed at obfuscating visual cues allowing a predator to pick an individual out from a herd. Indeed, disruptive colouration was pressed into service by several navies, who painted abstract patterns of black and white on warships in World War I, the idea being that the patterns would mislead an enemy with respect to the movement of the ships in question. Indeed, one of the contributors to the idea was a zoologist, John Graham Kerr, who proposed that certain patterns of lines painted on the sides of ships would make visual identification of ships, and proper gun laying, much harder for an enemy.

Oh, and by the way, in case you hadn't noticed this, sticks are linear in form, which means that spotted patterns would have no correlation therewith. On the other hand, of course, spotted patterns are useful in an environment where dappled foliage is being used for concealment, either to hide from a predator or to lay an ambush, but since those sticks in the requisite part of Genesis were stripped of foliage, we can also toss apologetic attempts to press this into service for your mythology into the bin.

But none of this, of course, addresses the underlying assertion, namely, that the authors of your mythology thought they could manipulate an animal's appearance, simply by having the parents shag alongside coloured sticks. The idea that this would magically induce the requisite mutations in the offspring is, of course, manifest nonsense, and was demonstrated to be thus by an Austrian monk and his diligent experiments with peaflowers. Of course, if the sticks in question were fashioned from weapons-grade plutonium, and painted with radium paint, then they would induce a lot of mutations in the offspring in question, but, as the evidence from the Chernobyl incident demonstrates starkly, a good number of those mutations would be so monstrously teratogenic in effect, that the authors of your mythology wouldn't have been talking about coat changes, but instead assorted farm animals born with weird numbers of limbs.

Though of course, it wouldn't be difficult to arrange an experiment to illustrate the requisite point. Pay a farmer enough, and he'd quite happily let his livestock get frisky in a paddock into which you had introduced various coloured sticks, and we could very easily, via such means, demonstrate, along with suitable controls, that this idea is a non-starter.

Plus, if the cornucopia of wildly varying coat colours had not appeared in those animals beforehand, this immediately tells anyone who paid attention in a biology class, that said colour schemes would be the product of recessive mutations, and would, as a corollary, be expected to appear in well-defined ratios, depending on the nature of the recessive genes responsible. A variation arising from a single recessive gene would be expected to appear in a quarter of the offspring, one arising from two recessive mutations would be expected to appear in 1/16th of the offspring, and so on.

Issues become more complex when dealing with polygenes, of course, as one of my past fellow entomologists discovered when investigating the genetics of Papilio dardanus butterfly wing patterns (a topic I've covered in great detail, via numerous scientific papers, elsewhere), but the idea that the entire population of offspring would break out in these weird colour schemes is another non-starter. Indeed, one of the findings of that research, is that crossing populations randomly has a habit of disrupting the well-defined patterns seen in those populations, resulting in a host of unusual intermediate forms, and the idea that a whole collection of ordered patterns would emerge from random crossings in a polygene setting is again a non-starter.

Meanwhile, it's time to deal with this ...

2nd
I dont think the bible states how many people saw the ghosts/zombies/dead persons raised at Matthew 27:53. But your argument from silence is the sort of logical fallacy you would never let me get away with.

Ahem, what part of "what is asserted to have taken place here, is an observable phenomenon on a large scale" do you not understand? The requisite passage doesn't assert that the odd one or two corpses became self-animated in some remote location, which of course makes one wonder about the sort of coincidence that would have been involved, for the writer of this to have been conveniently present at the requisite location. Instead, the passage clearly asserts that a large number of animated corpses were purportedly involved, and were purportedly observed by a large number of people. The idea that none of the people in question would be members of the occupying Roman forces, if this had happened, is again a non-starter. Furthermore, given as I've already stated, that the Romans had established a track record of diligent historical recording, covering even mundane events, the idea that they would have failed to report an event as spectacular as this, is again another non-starter.

It's not as if we're lacking precedents for this: the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE certainly counts as a spectacular event, one that would have been observable from up to 20 miles or more away as the tephra cloud rose above the caldera to the stratosphere, and the Romans paid the requisite diligent attention to recording that eruption and its aftermath, which included the death of Pliny the Elder while attempting to rescue friends from the eruption. On this basis, noting their failure to record a spectacular event of this sort isn't a "fallacy of silence", but rather, an apposite pointer to the likely falsity of the mythological assertion in question, the falsity of which, upon being even hinted at by Michael Licona, led to him being subject to a torrent of abuse by inerrantists.

Of course, the whole "inerrant" assertion about this mythology, involves so much in the way of sophistical elisions and convoluted apologetic gymnastics on the part of adherents thereto, that this alone suggests strongly that we're dealing with yet more wishful thinking on a grand scale, with attempts to conjure said wishful thinking into life via fatuous apologetic spells, even before we point to assertions contained within said mythology that are demonstrably not merely wrong, but absurd and inane to a comic degree. But the falsity of the requisite assertions certainly helps, at least among those of us who paid attention in classes on proper discourse.