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.
"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."
Yes, so you observe and see whether or not it does. If it causes the organism to be less likely to pass on it's genes, but the percentage of the population that possesses that gene increases, then natural selection is falsified.
Can't see how that would happen? That's because it wouldn't. The fact that it doesn't is what shows natural selection to be true.