Darwinian evolution : Process or pattern?

Darwinian evolution is a central tenet in biology. Conventionally, the defi nition of Darwinian evolution is linked to a population-based process that can be measured by focusing on changes in DNA/allele frequencies. However, in some publications it has been suggested that selection represents a state, not a process. If this is true any defi nition of Darwinian evolution that includes selection no longer can represent a process, because the ontological kind of selection is that of a state. There are other publications that also suggest that the concept of evolution needs a rethink, for example to deal with epigenetics, niche construction and horizontal DNA transfer. As a basis for contributing to both demands for re-conceptualisation, we will explore in this chapter whether or not the defi nition of the concept of Darwinian evolution can be defi ned in a stringent individual/object-based way, in terms of individual parents and their individual offspring, instead of in terms of populations of parents and offspring. The reason why we focus on an individual/ object-based approach is that this offers a basis for explicit descriptions of the objects involved and of the kinds of relationships between the objects, while a combination of these aspects offers a basis for decisions about which kind of over-all graph-pattern can be used for defi ning the concept of Darwinian evolution. Taking advantage of such possibilities, we suggest a graph-pattern for Darwinian evolution at the smallest scale. This smallest graph-pattern also offers a foundation for future scaling and extension. In the context of evolution, where everything seems prone to change, the pattern of Darwinian evolution at the smallest scale would also offer an unchanging core conceptualisation. We emphasise that the population viewpoint and the use of DNA/allele frequencies offer a solid and practical basis for calculations. In addition to this, we see theoretical reasons for the application of objectbased graph-patterns as a means to solve ambiguities about how Darwinian evolution can be defi ned conceptually.