Natural selection, unnatural selection- who cares about semantics?
Was the exact term even the point? I think not.
It's still selection. If you think you can take genetic problems and baby them along to the point those weak animals are reproducing and think that you are not selecting for weak genetics, and that those weak genetics are not going to be passed along, you are just full of nonsense.
I don't think that is what anybody is saying, but the point of someone misusing the term "natural selection" was that breeders are selecting the genetics to be passed on, and that when genetically weak animals are selected for breeding, the genetics are usually going to be a problem down the road for the descendants of those animals...
While in theory it could be possible for mutation to occur that would result in a meaningful modification to the species after a few generations the odds of this happening are negligible.
LOL all I can say is man oh man you there are some things you get the joy of discovering about animal breeding or lizards.
Some stuff for you to consider-
Take a look at some of the most popular mass produced lizards. Bearded dragons and leopard geckos. Do you think that all those colors, patterns, major differences in scalation, are not ALL the result of random mutations after a few generations? Exactly how many generations of bearded dragon do think have occurred since Bob Mailloux began breeding them in the 80s and had his first color mutation (the sandfire mutation)? He's told the story before about the origin of that line and how it started when he noticed an animal with more color and less pattern had been born there.
I myself never brought in the genetics for leatherbacks, nor for translucence, yet 2 years before the fire I had both genetic mutations pop up in my colony, independent of outside sources.
It is the same for nearly all the snake mutations and so forth- the breeders produce many, inbreed some, and then a mutation pops up which they lucked into and then they reproduce the mutation and market it as the next big exciting development. It has happened over and over and over again hundreds of times now across dozens of lizard and snake species.
Secondly- wild lizards- you need to look at a couple of studies in recent years where scientists released small numbers of lizards on lizard free islands and then returned after a couple decades to check on the lizards. In one case an insectivore became an omnivore with a special valve in the digestive system appearing to make it possible to use plant sources of food. There weren't so many insects on the island. Can't remember the results in the other case- could have been longer legs or something.
Thirdly, go read the national geographic article about captive breeding the (I think arctic) fox. Once again, selective breeding turned wild foxes into animals that behaved just like domestic dogs within a few years. They acted like dogs- played like dogs, treated their owners like dogs, etc. Simply by selecting the tamest individuals for breeding each generation.
If desirable traits can happen in a few generations, you better believe undesirable genetic weaknesses can as well.
Genetics matter. What gets passed on matters. Breeders should care what they select for breeding and what they allow out into the general population because they have no control over what will be reproduced or what will not, once it is sold.
I sure do. Nothing leaves here that is not thriving. No matter where it is going.
, you have a misconception of what natural selection means and how does it work. Natural selection does not affect small groups in that amount of time (for example: a group of baby chameleons that just hatched). Natural selection would be the mechanism of evolutionary changes (millions of years) caused by the environment. This whole concept of natural selection would not determine the survival rate of baby chameleons. What you are talking about I think is more of a survival rate concept, think that really changes when we talk about animals in captivity. 
