If so I agree, but this non-randomness mutations is not an example of natural selection.
My intention isn't to be rude, but you need to be more careful with your wording because this is widely open to interpretation. I'll be responding to what I think you meant which is "non-random mutation is not an example of natural selection," but if this isn't what you meant, please explain.
My response: If this refers to DNA mutation, then I can't think of any examples of non-random mutation except for the vague possibility of the merging of gametes caused by sexual reproduction. In this case, I would agree because it is the result of natural selection, not the cause of it.
If you're referring to the general mutation of a species, which would be more clearly understood as evolution, then again I would agree that evolution is not an example, but the result of natural selection.
I only bring this up because it doesn't seem like a claim that anyone would make, or even a misconception that could arise from an attempted understanding of evolution. Still, you asked if he agreed with you, so I must be missing something.