Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

I tried to do affine transforms at Cornell to represent biochange but when this was going by the boards I reverted to simply asking the evolutionists how to count the #peas (per pod or per branch). Not only did know one know how many geese were in a gaggle no one answered another PROFS (not me as undergraduate) as to what a "gene" was. Today we know better (at least I do about genes) but I still do not know how to count a "hybrid swarm" of painted turtles. It seems all the arguing made the red on the southern painter of no account and yet that would not do if one insisted to use heritbility. you see the NUMBER ( of fish or birds etc) is not something that we can facutal really yet dissus even though it can not be objected that if ytou asserted NINE it really was ATE. That is not meant as rhetoric but is veild insight. Reject it if ytou must. The concept of mutation seems threaded a bit too plurivocally here for me to target the answer less directly than with the next number and that is not good enough.