> there is literally no evidence at all for TDD
> And have been falsified
Falsification requires evidence.
You can't say there's no evidence and then turn around to draw a conclusion two seconds later.
> like in the link I provided you
That is but one blog post. Science doesn't work by cherry-picking results. That's a tactic used by climate change deniers and homoeopathic medicine supporters. The evidence must be taken in full.
In addition, I skimmed the paper cited in that article [1]. It appears to be measuring TDD's effects on external quality. That is not a purported benefit of TDD. Most of the research I've seen agrees with that paper: TDD doesn't improve external quality (defined by passing acceptance tests). The contention is over whether it improves internal quality. Also note that the paper cites "process conformance" as a threat to validity, which is what I've been saying is one of the major problems with TDD research all along [2]. The experiment also used students, which is known to be a problem when generalizing results. With TDD in particular, some research indicates that it's more effective with mature developers and ineffective with inexperienced developers. If you've read the rest of the research instead of cherry-picking, you would have known that.
I'm not trying to make a bold claim about TDD. The evidence doesn't support that. I'm trying to help people like you look at the subject objectively. You can't form an objective opinion without evidence (which you claim) or while cherry-picking evidence (which you've done). But frankly, I don't think you want my help, so the last word is yours if you want it.
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/application/mdl/mdlconfirmation....
[2] That was my first bullet point in my first comment on this thread: "there's little confidence that TDD was applied correctly in many of the studies."