the phylogeographic challenge to creationism

I don't understand why you keep driving this point home. Without mutation, the ToE wouldn't work. Ok. Now what? What is the point of this exactly?

Why are you so hung up on the number of proccesses that are either additive or subtractive? Even if there's only 1 additive process (mutation) - if it adds more than the others subtract, you have a net gain. What's so hard about this?
Where does mutation "crumble" before our very eyes? You are saying you want to ignore mutation for now, but if it is the "lone hope" for evolution, or whatever you want to call it, what exactly are you accomplishing by not talking about it?
If you want to make the case that genetic diversity decreases over time, the one thing you better damn well NOT ignore is mutation.

I am not especially familiar with other process which introduce variability in the ToE, and frankly I don't care about them right now. Mutation, to my knowledge, is the main one. In answering my question of why you are trying to make this point, your response is basically "Because other people keep waffling about it"
I don't think the purpose of your point is to make people waffle - so in just looking at the basic definition of evolution as mutation + selection (and I'm not saying that's all that's involved in evolution), if someone were to conceed the point to you that without mutation, the whole thing falls apart - then what?
WHY are you trying to make this point? Mutation DOES occur so what are you gaining by claiming that without it, evolution doesn't happen?

This seems to be the main point of this post. But evolution IS the combination of all these forces, TOGETHER. Evolution is not simply "the addition of genetic diversity" which seems to be your working definition, at least in this post. The additions through mutation make evolution possible, as does the subtraction/deletion/killing of selection. So the argument that those forces work against evolution certainly doesn't follow, as those forces are part of evolution.