I'm not following that. Why would it "change" into a form that hides its competition from selection pressure?
Genes are only "dominant" or "recessive" in relationship to each other. A dominant gene that imposes a handicap or vulnerability will be eliminated from the gene pool much more quickly than a recessive one - it's comparatively more difficult to get rid of a completely recessive gene.
Evolution does not proceed toward benefit, but away from culling.fo3 said:but in case of an allele increasing fitness relatively more than other alleles of the same gene, it would benefit the species a lot more if it was dominant instead of recessive and being expressed in the phenotype more often.
Evolution does not proceed toward benefit, but away from culling.
If there are two alleles, one of which is comparatively and definitely an inferior reproducer, the replacement of the inferior by the superior will happen much faster and more completely if the inferior is dominant compared with the superior.
If the species "benefits" by that, so much the better - that would be a side effect.
Once the inferior is culled, the remaining allele would have the gene pool to itself, with no need of "dominance".
But it would be a reproductive disadvantage for the superior allele - selection would not be eliminating its competition as fast or as completely.fo3 said:The benefit for the species wouldn't be a side effect at all, it would be a reproductive advantage over other species competing for the same resources that do not tend to get as much dominant useful alleles as fast. This should be pretty much the idea of group selection, if I am correct.