No offense, but you're not making any sense here. If a species or population develops a trait ( via survival, breeding, inheritance) then in what way have they not survived, bred, or passed on their genes...including trait X.
As your statement stands, I don't think a logical contradiction is evidence of an observation that in principle could falsify natural selection.
If, for example, a culture of bacteria was routinely exposed to an antibiotic that it was previously immune to, it would be a violation of natural selection if that culture's future generations slowly started becoming susceptible to it's effects
Again, you're not making any sense.
It's not a violation of natural selection if an organism, or group of organisms, fail to inherit any given trait, beneficial or otherwise...and if they did inherit the trait, and it's dominant, then you have another logical contradiction on your hands. The only other alternative is that the trait is recessive, which again, is not a violation of natural selection
"If a species or population develops a trait ( via survival, breeding, inheritance) then in what way have they not survived, bred, or passed on their genes...including trait X."
But does that trait make it more or less likely that an individual possessing it will survive and pass it on? If less, then it's a violation of natural selection.
"It's not a violation of natural selection if an organism, or group of organisms, fail to inherit any given trait, beneficial or otherwise...and if they did inherit the trait, and it's dominant, then you have another logical contradiction on your hands. The only other alternative is that the trait is recessive, which again, is not a violation of natural selection"
It is if failing to inherit that trait makes it less likely that they will survive and pass on their genes. That's the important part that you don't understand.