Let's assume that in the event of faulty ABS t.s. brakes, neither of the brake systems works (not even the basic) - this is case 1. It is obviously imperative to guarantee the commercial reliability of the new car (including the avoidance of accidents). Thus the brakes must always function (either the basic or the basic + ABS).

Thus, when installing ABS brakes, one must be absolutely convinced that the technical specifications are correct. Comparing the technical specifications in both genes can only ensure this. If they coincide, we can be sure that practically no fault exists, as it would be difficult for them to coincide in one particular fault.

If one of the genes does not include ABS t.s. or if ABS t.s. is included in both genes, but is not identical in both, the result will be a lack of ABS brakes. In case 1, therefore, the dominant gene is type B. This is because its presence forces normal brakes to develop as it is impossible, as previously stated, for the ABS t.s. to coincide in both genes.

Note that gene type B is the least evolved of the two in our example.

Now let's consider the opposite case (case 2) - that in the event of faulty ABS t.s., the ABS brakes cease to function but the basic brakes are not affected. This means that in order to guarantee the commercial reliability of the new vehicle the presence of ABS t.s. is not essential in both genes, as any fault would not harm the basic brakes or the car.

Thus, if only one B+A type gene exists, the car would be manufactured with ABS brakes, as if they are operational, it is only an advantage and poses no risk.

In this last case, the dominant gene is type B+A; because it is present, it will always manifest itself and it is still more evolved (modern) than type B. As we can see, the dominant gene from the first case has become recessive and the recessive gene has become dominant. This implies that a dominant or recessive being is a relative concept.

Now let's add a new gene type - B+A+M. This gene type has more modern (powerful) technical specifications than ABS. In the example at case 1, we would find that gene type B+A would be recessive compared with type B and dominant compared with type B+A+M. On the other hand, for case 2, gene type B+A would be dominant compared with type B and recessive compared with type B+A+M.

In the genetic makeup of any new being, a genetic sign (mark) is needed to determine the kind of behaviour to be applied - in other words a particular DNA chain is needed. An example of a molecular mechanism that allows the incorporation of this genetic mark would be histones (pieces of ADN). These have been studied by modern molecular biology.

Now let's discuss whether the dominant gene compensates for the recessive form or solely the dominant allele is expressed. Here we are faced with the same dilemma - the answer is that it depends. In case 1, due to the dominant gene, or type B, the result is basic brakes. But if both genes are type B+A and no mistake is detected when verifying the technical specifications, the recessive gene could develop both basic and ABS brakes. In case 2, the dominant gene, or type B+A, develops both types of brakes and the recessive gene, or type B, only basic brakes. Either way, I assume that nature has come across all types of cases (similar to and different from cases 1 and 2).

All of the above is in fact a very simplistic explanation, although not as simplistic perhaps as the old-fashioned concept of the dominant gene.

Let us not forget that nowadays the generally accepted school of thought is that the evolutionary process is based on a combination of random mechanisms and natural selection. In my opinion, this line of thinking could be applied to the evolution of insects, bearing in mind that millions and millions of baby insects are born in short periods of time; but although they have been evolving for millions of years, their evolution has not been particularly great

In fact, the evolution of man has just been the opposite. Only 2000 generations of human descendants have been produced (if one accepts that modern humans have only existed for 40000 or 50000 years); although few children are born per generation, the evolution of the human brain has been enormous.

How many combinations of direct descendants would be necessary for the Windows 3.11 code to evolve into the Windows 95 code using a system based on random changes?

How many combinations would be necessary for the technical specifications of basic car brakes to convert into ABS brakes?

I believe that we should change our philosophical ideas surrounding genetic evolution. This minor change would lead to a recognition of the intrinsic dynamics of genetic evolution.