Is there more than one definition of natural selection?

"Natural selection" is only a vague conception, nothing more. It is so vague and flexible that even darwinists themselves used it weirdly. Heikertinger has given a nice example of it, how it is used. He quoted an observation done by N.Banks.Banks found in nests of sphecidae Pelopoeus 400 spiders, from which 3 had cryptic coloration. It means 397 had no protective coloration. So he considered the phenomenon this way - it is fully underestandable, because wasps searching spiders are deceived as men are. Then occurs him an idea, that mass consummation of non-cryptic spiders should have decimated their populations. Because this is obviously not the case they must have some other advantages... the taxa have greater proliferation...Dahl continues and he sees everywhere advantages, protective means etc. Some quality has advantage and an opposite quality has it too.
"A great animal...has great advantage..."
"But also having small body give significant advantage..."
"There is no doubt that moveability, agility give great advantage."
"But also absecnce of moveability, agility give great advantage..."

Thank you Brad.The blog Kakistocrat seems to be interesting. I'll check it more closely later.My point is - and always has been - that Natural selection play no role in evolution. I hope I will introduce some arguments regarding crypsis and protection soon. I have bought the book from Franz Heikertinger "Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung: Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Widerlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen" Jena 1954. The book summarizes H. views on the matter and is largely unnoticed, because strangely enough the book was published in communist part of Germany in 1954.There is also an interesting article from H. available at Ukrainian science academy on-line library from 1932. Here H. adressed the problem of supposedly poisonous protection of ladybugs. He repeated some experiments done by selectionists and obtained different results. The article is very interesting, full of information about ladybugs going into the medieval age.Heikertinger was of opinion that every species (plant or animal) pay some kinf of tax (Tribut) to its predators. No matter if species is protected, aposematic, poisonous or whatever. Predators are very often specialised to only few kind of species, often to only one (many larvae of butterflies). So everyone has it's own predator. To this predator poisonous or protective quality of the species seems to be pleasant. He support his observation by many facts. Very often at the same environment (anthill) live next to each other and thrive non-mimic and mimic species very well.