What is evolution? the standard answer we seem to be getting over the forum seems to be the change in gene frequency in a population over time. This is a very unsatisfactory basis for the concept of evolution, mainly because it is just the dogma of restricted biological discipline: population biology. If we look back in history then we see that at some point developmental biologists and population biologists started to disagree on the question if evolution could be satisfactory explained. The developmental biologist saw that there was currently something missing. The population biologist did amazing work with Drosophila and such and saw no problem. But the time seems right that there should be a union of both disciplines in this respect. From a developmental viewpoint the dogma of change in gene frequency is pointless. They are not interested in studying the change as such. They study how an individual is made, which is only partly based on genetics. In developmental biology it is the 'arrival' of the fittest that counts, not the 'survival'. An individual is not the content of its genome, rather it is a life cycle, which is governed partly by the genome. At all stages during its life the individual must be able to survive. From a single cell, to a blastula, a gastrula, an intermediate larval stage to the adult, to the aging adult, all are different stages with different requirements. None is more important than the other. All need to be survived. any thoughts on this matter, or are we all happy with the current viewpoints?