Let's use your definition ie "survival of the just good enough". If the environment was so harsh that a particular trait could not even survive long enough to reproduce, then only individuals who are actively expressing that trait would disappear.
Sure. But it would still continue to be expressed. It's just that those individuals would be less successful. That is hardly "hidden", just less widespread.
It is possibly worth noting that there can be other reasons why a gene might not be expressed. Birds, for example, still carry the genes necessary to create teeth, but these genes are not expressed in the phenotype. It's nothing to do with dominance/recessiveness, but to do with developmental factors.
The unexpressed allele would still linger on in the population at large. These harsh conditions could even continue for thousands or millions of years. In every generation where the allele is expressed, the individual would die.
Well, not
every individual, not necessarily. But yes, those individuals that expressed the poorly adapted allele would become markedly less common, or die out. That
is natural selection. That's what natural selection is. Everything you've said here
supports the standard evolutionary understanding of natural selection.
However, after enough time had passed, circumstances or the environment might change. Individuals who are now expressing the gene may actually survive or even flourish. The example that I am thinking of is the peppered moths.
Yes. It's a rather beautiful piece of evidence in favour of natural selection. Every single thing you've said here supports natural selection. Not that I have a problem with that; I just want you to understand that none of this is an objection to natural selection, indeed, it's quite the reverse.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.