I don't quite get you here. Assuming a stable fitness landscape is sort of weird, but for the sake of argument, ok. Now, individual survival rates are impossible to assess, but the survival rates of traits should be possible in both cases. However, I am a bit confused here, you take one theory, and then (hypothetically) change what the unknown factor is and try to define that as a tautology? I don't see it. Explain it to me in maths, I know maths.



I don't quite get you here. If you have perfect knowledge of the fitness landscape and genomes, you'd have a statistical base for predicting an outcome of what will survive, and then you could check to see if your prediction is true on a statistical basis. However, on an individual level, it's still impossible to determine anything... But a statistical falsification would be enough to fit your criterion here, I believe? NS is a statistical model, after all.



Huh. I don't buy it, honestly. Too simple? Nothing with that many factors involved is simple. There are plenty of things which are always true which has falsifiable properties. Go and fall into the sky to check if gravity works. The nature of this beast is that you cannot accurately describe all the factors involved in an ever-changing environment, and that biological systems tend to be complex even in cases of extreme control.