"So is "selection" more important to speciation than mutation? Absolutely not, per above."
But your *example* is nonsense. It is never either or. Selection doesn't stop in nature or in captivity. You have ignore completely selection affects.
And you have no idea what the mutation rates are anyway.
"But your *example* is nonsense." 
That's incorrect, though you have managed to grasp that your own counter-argument hinges on my example being in error.
Too bad.
What my example does is point out the two most extreme situations:
#1 is selection pressures with no mutations, and
#2 is mutations with no selection pressures.
There is no "nonsense" about such extremes. They can easily exist in a lab or zoo, for example.
And they illustrate which is more important: selection or mutation.
Keep thinking about that point and eventually you'll catch on.
But your *example* is nonsense. It is never either or.Notice how many of his arguments are based on the either-or logical fallacy? Either you have lots of mutations or none. Either you have completely random mutation causing speciation or the theory of evolution is false. So far most of his points have been set up to be binary, with no recognition of third options. It will be interesting to see if this is the only intellectual format he can generate...