No, I'm using it to mean an untestable (or in this case untested) narrative explanation for a biological phenomenon. There are several prevalent narratives arou

No, I'm using it to mean an untestable (or in this case untested) narrative explanation for a biological phenomenon. There are several prevalent narratives around the evolution of microbes that are taken to be true because they tell a nice narrative story with very little empirical backing, and even less information on things like time frames. "Structures that are unused but require resources are selected against" for example, is something that feels correct, but isn't necessarily true because resistance genes don't exist in isolation. "Community MRSA will lose out to MSSA because of an absence of selective pressure" kept being trotted out because it fit narratively well beyond when it was becoming apparent that wasn't true.