Not really. The numerous evolutionary selection 'forces' actively limit the range of variability within a given environment. If it wasn't for the limitations of selection, mutations by themselves would have run rampant resulting in far more variation than we see. Only when a group of organisms are faced with a modified environment does selection force that population towards a new norm.
The smaller the population (above a specific critical point) the faster the new norm is reached.
If you define those "forces" as agents which limit viability, you just said what I said. If you suggest forces that DON'T limit viability, but somehow otherwise conveniently limit mutations that should occur and would be viable simply so we don't have a huge variability, I'm not sure what the point OR the mechanism would be.
Put another way, I see neither the point nor the operability of selection forces that don't effect viability or opportunity to succeed but still manage to prevent mutations that have occured from spreading in the population. I guess that seems like the definition of viability and opportunity -- at least that's what I was trying to cover with those terms, which I admit may not be the scientific technical terms for whatever processes you envision.
That's probably why Inuit have darker skin to absorb UV energy than say - the Zulu. O wait,...never mind.