The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Guliuzza, R.J., and P.B. Gaskill. 2018. Continuous environmental tracking: An engineering framework to understand adaptation and diversification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism , ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 158–184. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. CONTINUOUS ENVIRONMENTAL TRACKING: AN ENGINEERING FRAMEWORK TO UNDERSTAND ADAPTATION AND DIVERSIFICATION Randy J. Guliuzza , Institute for Creation Research, 1806 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 USA, rguliuzza@icr.org Phil B. Gaskill , Cramer Fish Sciences, Gresham, Oregon ABSTRACT We offer a new framework for understanding biological adaptability based on interpreting the findings of 342 journal articles and 67 online reports related to adaptation, bioengineering, and design in view of the assumption that biological functions are most accurately explained by engineering principles. We hypothesize that organisms actively and continuously track environmental variables and respond by self-adjusting to changing environments—utilizing the engineering principles constraining how human-designed objects self-adjust to changes—which results in adaptation. We termed this hypothesis Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET). CET is an engineering-based, organism- focused characterization of adaptation. CET expects to find that organisms adapt via systems with elements analogous to those within human-engineered tracking systems, namely: input sensors, internal logic mechanisms to select suitable responses, and actuators to execute responses. We derived the hypothesis by reinterpreting findings and formalizing biological adaptability within a framework of engineering design, considering: (1) objectives, (2) constraints, (3) variables, and (4) the biological systems related to the previous three. The literature does identify internal mechanisms with elements analogous to engineered systems using sensors coupled to complex logic mechanisms producing highly “targeted” self-adjustments suitable to changes. Adaptive mechanisms were characterized as regulated, rapid, repeatable, and sometimes, reversible. Adaptation happened largely through regulated gene expression and not gene inheritance, per se. These observations, consistent with CET, contrast starkly with the evolutionary framework’s randomness of tiny, accidental “hit-and-miss” phenotypes fractioned out to lucky survivors of deadly challenges. Evolutionists now divide over their framework’s need of modification, and a trend among some seeks to infuse more engineering into biology. This disarray affords a rare, transient opportunity for engineering advocates to frame the issue. CET may fundamentally change how we perceive organisms; from passive modeling clay shaped over time by the vicissitudes of nature, to active, problem-solving creatures that continuously track environmental changes to better fit existing niches or fill new ones. KEY WORDS rapid adaptation, specific adaptive mechanism, tracking systems, epigenetics, sensor, engineering principles, systems biology, intelligent design, evolutionary synthesis Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org 158 INTRODUCTION The search for the mechanismunderlying theadaptivediversification of organisms could be futile. This is for good reason. Research continues to discover wide-ranging adaptive mechanisms—from genetic to epigenetic, behavioral, and ecological—and, therefore, they resist being pigeon-holed into a single category (Laland et al. 2015; Muller 2017). Several theorists have cautioned that unless the structure of the current theory of adaptation itself adapts to accommodate these diverse mechanisms into its research programs and explanations—and refrains from shoe-horning them into old theory—then advances in the whole field of biological adaptation may be hindered (Lewontin 1983). Subsequently, a meeting of the British Academy and the Royal Society was held on November 7-9, 2016 focused on reconciling theory with certain observations and mechanisms of adaptation, some of which are discussed herein. Commenting on why no one should be alarmed over sharp differences about interpretations of the same data, several key organizers said, “But let us also remember that no scientific, mathematical or philosophical advance occurs simply by quoting authority. In the end, evidence is what counts. Remember also the philosophical insight that evidence is evidence precisely because it can be so interpreted. We all work, explicitly or implicitly, from or within metaphysical assumptions. That is so whether or not we recognize it. Moreover, different assumptions dominate alternative academic fields, which can lead to differences in interpretation, and to different emphases between individuals and field on what is causally relevant” (Bateson et al. 2017, p. 1 emphasis in original) We agree that the theory needs revision, but we find the new mechanisms incompatible with current theory. In the spirit of Bateson’s counsel about interpretations, we offer a new framework for understanding adaptability that interprets observations and results in the literature in view of the assumption that biological systems and functions are most accurately explained by engineering principles. At a broad level, fresh interpretations form a new description of what organisms achieve when they adapt. Then data is re-interpreted to identify where adaptive capacity resides at the organism-environment interface. The mechanisms themselves are re-interpreted to identify how adaptation happens via a myriad of diverse mechanisms. Thus, this paper offers a new way to characterize the body of literature about adaptation. This approach