I know that blending with the environment offers survival advantage. That is obvious. The point is that it does not arise due to random variations. It arises through all around communication between the environment, cells and DNA (refer Denis Noble).
Complete non-sense - if this were possible why on earth wouldn't many other species have used their ability for
'communication between the environment, cells and DNA' to develop the useful ability to change colour to blend into their background. But of course the vast majority of species don't do that, despite the obvious benefit. It is almost as if the ability to change colour has arisen in a random manner in some species but not others, not on the basis of its usefulness, but in a random manner. Of course if it does develop it will persevere as individuals with this trait will be more likely to survive and breed. This, of course, assumes, that the trait is hereditable, and for it to be hereditable over many generations it needs to be encoded in the genetic material.
It also clearly indicates that survival is an objective that is inherent in every organism towards which it tries to adapt and develop.
No, survival is an outcome, not an objective. Mutations in DNA occur all the time - some are neutral, some detrimental, some beneficial. There is no 'objective' to those mutations, however those that are beneficial are likely to survive. But you seem to be completely in thrall to survivor bias. You focus on the mutations that allow chameleons to change colour and therefore to blend, but there have also been mutations that change the colour of species in a manner that makes them less likely to survive - and those will disappear rapidly as they confer survival disadvantage.
But the mutations that drive both colour changes are the same - there is no 'objective' to either. What is the case is that those that are beneficial persevere over generations and those that are detrimental rapidly disappear.
