Why this?

It might sound stupid for some but I have a question as to why are species the way they are. According to Dawkins, indivudals are selfish. Genes are selfish. We are all selfish. We want what is best for us. The genes want what is best for them, etc.

Then, think about the Lion and the Gazelle. They are both very complex organisms that developed by the course of evolution. But eventually they came from an individual gene.

If a specie, or an individual wants to survive. Wouldn't it be favored if it where an alpha? A dominant specie? One that would be on top of the food chain?

From what I've understood of the text. Nature is stabilized between the interctions of all species. But then, if genes are so selfish? Wouldn't they all prefer to be carnivores? To be bigger? To be tougher? etc.

I know that evolution is based on random mutations and all. But, i cant understand why arent there more dominant species in the moment? Probably there were but they had to fight other species and this led to extinction of many. But this cannot be fully true. The gazelle will eventually die because it was eaten by a lion. On the other hand, a lion will die of old. Will be hunted, or will die by any other reason but will never be eaten by another specie. (Well, maybe a vulture will eat it's meat after it dies).

My question is then, why are we not seeing that species are becoming more dominant as time passes? It may be possible that this is indeed happening. That in millions of years. If there are still gazelles. They might be able to fight back against a lion.

I know that it sounds ridiculous, but, if genes are selfish, and survival machines are too. This kind of evolution should be seen in the present. Or will be seen in the future...