What kind of shell game is this, anyways? Think about a gene like the one mentioned above. Is it one you would like to have? Are you unable, on the basis of its general effect, to categorize it as any of the following:
a. beneficial
b. neutral
c. deleterious
Does an operative principle intended to result in a survivable population introduce a gene that shortens life and does not allow for reproduction? To most folks with a little common sense a gene such as this would be considered "deleterious."
It certainly goes against the operating principles of natural selection as an agent opting in favor of beneficial genes so essential to all the progress we've enjoyed for these "billions" of years. Otherwise, if natural selection operates without principle and can be arbitrary, then what is it's value other than pretending it was operative as we describe the past?
If an allele has a beneficial effect early in life, and a detrimental effect late in life, it will still be favoredSome things take more than half a second of thought. Maybe "common sense" is being too shallow in its analysis.