Is there more than one definition of natural selection?

He stands right :Although I would like to modify it.Original defintion is:
"Natural selection: The differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by individuals of different genetic types but belonging to the same population."My defintion :
Natural selection: The differential random accumulation of characteristics of offsprings in the next generation due to different genetic types belonging to the same population.We can not use words like contribution or by individuals.

We can. Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.REP: Thats what is under discussion.
What follows is a Little bit of history here and my point of view:
The asexually reproductive cell changed the behaviour to sexual for unknown reasons.Asexual reproduction is better for replication algorithmcally. And this is what the genes do.
This strategy of change from asexual to sexual carried no inherent intention.
We know that there are 4 legged mammals and therefore we can expect
the common ancestors to mammals to have 4 legs as well.
We do not expect the common ancestor to have 6 legs.
But why will any animal need 6 legs where 4 limbs are sufficient.
The change in structure leads to genotype changes as well and vice versa. With 6 limbs the species will have to change the behaviour as well ....How to hunt ? How to defend ? How to involve in Sex ?
Similarly if the required behvaiour is such that 6 limbs are required then why not?
This is the typical need based reasoning which is needed for
phenotype stability.
Therefore we find a concept of non-random mutation.
BUT How is this possible?
A radom mechanical (which can be fitted into machine) leads to a non-random and non-mechanical manifestation of selection.
This is impossible.
All logical constructs are inconsistent and incomplete.
Precisely it means a machine can not come out of loops on its own.
(e.g loops : This statement is false. )
As a machine can not think.It simply executes the algorithm and the statement can not be answered by any Universal Truth Machine.
Therefore if assume random origins then the non-random appearence is due to lack of knowledge.
Which means there is flaw in the algorithm of evolution.
Therefore we are having this debate.
I have a solution for this.
The assign a purpose to the evolution of life.
All life forms work towards sustainable pleasure.
TSP is the backbone of my theory of evolution...
So far the theory has explained everything which the Dawkins theory can explain.It may need a sperate thread to discuss.
Or you can create a Thread : Do you believe that pleasure is the root cause of evolution ? and we will discuss.
================================================
Those that survive and reproduce contribute to the genetic composition of the population of the next generation. Those that do not make no genetic contribution.
REP:As per current theory there can not be any desire to contribute to genetic compostion.(Infact from TSP point of view there is no such desire but even without desire it turns out that phenotype genes will be extra stable.)

REP: The local differential success does not add upto the global success. But How is this this possible ?
THIS is possible because locally differential can result into failure.
The species are unstable ...Differntial can set the Species on suicidal path..Its a matter of one or two genes to annihilate the entire species(due uneven distribution of genetic pools ).
It is important to understand that there is nothing(individually or statistically) like "Natural" in the Selection process which can guide the species to success.
The current theory of GENE REPLICATION requires non-random selection for the stability of phenotype genes.( 6 limbs to 4 limbs doesnt happen suddenly .. but behavioural changes can take place more quickly... note that some snakes reproduce babies as well and we dont call them mammals )
This non-random selection can not evolve out of any algorithm.
(I have posted a thread under proposed topics where I ask whether Knowledge is evolutionary or not?)
I explain this stability using my theory of Towards Sustainable Pleasure which explicitly requires stable phenotypes for sustainable pleasure of Group over large period of time.
Infact all Group and individuals aim TSP.The sterile soldier bees can be explained using my theory.
It explains transition from asexual to sexual.
The sexual behaviour of birds can be explained.
The wide use of Condoms can be explained,
Homosexuality can be explained
Early recognition of sexuality can be explained
It can also explain diseases like cancer.
(due to improper strategy towards collective sustainable pleasure)
The theory brings together pyschology and biology.
Thoughts and emotions.
Gives life a purpose.
All you have to do is learn the three words:
Towards Sustainbale PleasureTowards - It is process
Sustainable - It is a strategy
Pleasure (or Happiness)-It is the experience ...Pleasure is a biological state which can also be achieved using drugs.
But it may not be sustainable.
Therefore all 3 words are important.
It is a scientific theory.