As usual I have to cross all the commas and dot all the t's around here or off with my head.
ha ha, I feel the same way. Around here, I don't think I could get away with saying bluejays are blue without someone demanding that I cite my source to prove it.
Not having a grasp of the whole process doesn't mean that I don't know that mutation refers to various ways parts of the DNA strand are switched around during duplication.
I think I might view mutations a bit differently than you do.
As you know, the rungs of the DNA 'ladder' are made of 4 different bases - often abbreviated as the letters A,C,G, and T. The arrangement of these 4 letters determines our genes. Changes (mutations) are often made in this sequence and these changes in sequence changes our genes. All that is required for new genes (and therefore, new genotypes, new phenotypes, and new allelles) is merely a change in sequence on this ladder - and this happens all the time. We are born with 100+ mutations.
Simply claiming that mutations are going to prevent the reduction I'm talking about doesn't cut it.
You are right that natural selection reduces genetic variation by its removal of maladapted individuals (and consequently the genes/phenotypes/alleles associated with those maladaptations) from a population. Balance is restored by the fact that new mutations are always occurring.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by reduction. But consider this: the larger the population and the higher the mutation rate = the more mutations (and therefore more variation, variety, phenotypes, genes, alleles, etc) in that population. So lets imagine a pool filled with mutations from that population - natural selection can scoop out a lot of them, but more mutations will come along to take the place of what was lost.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
