"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.
Well, how do you know unless it survives long enough to reproduce. It seems to me that the conditions and terms define themselves, and in which case, prediction and testatbility are impossible.
....If less, then it's a violation of natural selection.
Then how do you account for any given organism inheriting such a trait. Unless we're talking about the carrier of the original mutation (first instantiation of whatever trait) which wouldn't violate natural selection, then you have another contradiction, and another circular argument.
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.
You have no way of knowing what would be beneficial to new organisms. What may be beneficial to the parent, may not be beneficial to the offspring.
You're only standard for what may be considered beneficial, is whether or not the organism lives long enough to reproduce, and you only know that, when it happens.