Natural selection is flawed, because in reality we are not "what you see is what you get". We carry and pass on inhibited genes, sometimes for many generations. Eg:
--> note that there's no physical difference between the first 3 offspring cases; they look identical
I like mixed genes a lot.
I think mine are quite mixed as well. I used to think that dominant traits are going to replace recessive traits (i.e. there will be no more blue-eyed people some day), but that's very unlikely to happen in practically distant future. Because over large populations, the probabilities for "pure" genes to survive are as high as the probabilities of fully dominant ones. We just don't see as many blue-eyed people around us, but the blue-eye gene is fine nevertheless, and is not going anywhere. The only way to exterminate recessive traits would be to forbid them to reproduce. Otherwise, assuming the reproductive odds are equal, they'd always exist. (i'm so happy)
I think they were telling us in school this racist nonsense that recessive traits are going to disappear, while statistically there's perfect balance between recessive and dominant traits, and if racism is not a reproductive factor, this balance should always remain. That's because "recessive" and "dominant" traits are only about what's shown on the surface, what gets activated, while the survival rate of passing them to offspring is 50/50; i.e. "recessive" are not less likely to survive. (otherwise they probably wouldn't be here anyway)
Think about an example, to see that getting double dominant genes is not a "dead end":
BB meets
Bw (both look B) --> child happens to be
Bw meets another
Bw (both look B again) --> child happens to be
ww (looks w, all of a sudden). Note that this started from a double dominant BB person, and he/she could have double recessive ww grandchildren, even if always mating with other B-looking people.
