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

is a contribution toward the development of a new, comprehensive engineering-based framework for understanding biological phenomena (Snoke 2014). How different is this characterization of adaptation from the status-quo? Why select an engineering framework? Why now? 1. The Current Framework of Diversification and Adaptation Tenets of the current, widely-held conceptual framework used to characterize diversification and adaptation are defined by Muller (2017): In a condensed form, these tenets are as follows: (i) all evolutionary explanation requires the study of populations of organisms; (ii) populations contain genetic variation that arises randomly from mutation and recombination; (iii) populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by natural selection, gene flow and drift; (iv) genetic variants generate slight phenotypic effects and the resulting phenotypic variation is gradual and continuous; (v) genetic inheritance alone accounts for the transmission of selectable variation; (vi) new species arise by a prevention of gene flow between populations that evolve differently; (vii) the phenotypic differences that distinguish higher taxa result from the incremental accumulation of genetic variation; (viii) natural selection represents the only directional factor in evolution (p. 3). Muller’s equivalence of diversification and adaptation with evolution is questioned by those in creationist and Intelligent Design circles. Still, key elements accepted within selectionism include the familiar elements of natural selection, population-level thinking, Mendelian inheritance (gene-centricity), mode (accumulation of favored genetic variants), and rate (gradual and linear) (Denton 2013; Jeanson, 2017; Jeanson and Lisle 2016; Laland et al. 2015). Further, the entire framework, particularly research programs, is grounded in the assumptions that the diversification and adaptation process is random, unregulated, unguided toward any need-based outcome, and that organisms are driven by the vicissitudes of nature (Reigner 2015). 2. Discontent with the Current Understanding of Adaptation However, a growing list of observed phenomena and mechanisms seem to be anomalous to the current understanding of adaptation (Koonin 2009) unless numerous ad hoc modifications are devised to eliminate apparent conflicts (Futuyma 2017). The principle incongruities which prompted the 2016 Royal Society meeting are recently identified mechanisms regularly characterized with non-random descriptors such as: biased and directional, rapid, predictable, and repeatable (Table 1 lists multiple examples). These findings are contrary to the classic framework of gradual diversification and adaptation resulting from random variation fractioned out through diverse death-driven scenarios where survival and reproduction are highly dependent on “luck” (Snyder and Ellner 2018). Accordingly, there is a growing insistence on modification of this framework (Laland et al. 2014). Some believe the current framework is so out-of-date that it still fails to incorporate knowledge of developmental regulatory mechanisms into both theoretical population genetics and genetic accommodation theory (Laland et al. 2015; Muller 2017). While true, criticizing the current framework as merely “out-of-date” may be misidentifying the problem. This paper explores the possibility that the primary cause of the clash between recent discoveries and the current framework is that the basic tenets of the framework— and their underlying naturalistic, design-exclusive assumptions— are fundamentally incompatible with recent discoveries. Adaptive mechanisms characterized as regulated, rapid, repeatable, and predictable are anomalous precisely because those words seem to describe the purposeful outcomes of engineered systems. In areas of applied biological research, a growing trend is to incorporate engineering principles to frame biological phenomena. We believe that there are good reasons to incorporate this approach into a replacement framework for diversification and adaptation as well. 3. A Growing Tendency to Explain Biological Functions with Engineering Principles Life itself seems to have attributes which are currently beyond the reach of scientific methods to discover, but making sense of biomolecular, physiological, or anatomical functions is not mysterious. Could it prove useful to apply engineering principles to explain how a biological function like adaptation works? There is good justification to begin doing so. Despite their vastly different substrates, living organisms are subject to the same fundamental constraints that govern all regulatory mechanisms, and they function within the same laws of nature as man-made designs (Khammash 2008). This makes it possible to study birds to gain insight into aircraft design, for example. Research demonstrates a remarkable correspondence in design, purpose, and function of Guliuzza and Gaskill ◀ How organisms continuously track environmental changes ▶ 2018 ICC 159 • Adaptations often appear to be “targeted” not “hit-and- miss” solutions to environmental challenges. • Organisms can modify their developmental course to produce novel and suitable phenotypic variants. • Organisms do track dynamic conditions and self-adjust their traits correspondingly. • Diverse organisms repeatedly express similar morphological traits when located in similar environments. • Adaptive mechanisms seem to be highly regulated under the control of precise cellular circuits. • Many adaptive “mutations” increasingly looks to be controlled internally. • The genome is increasing viewed as a read–write library of genetic functions under continuous revision and not as mostly read-only with a few rare mutations. • The rate of adaptation can be variable and is often rapid. • Some adaptations are known to be repeatable and reversible across taxa and time. • Adaptive means include: genetic, epigenetic, developmental, behavioral, founder effect, and ecological. • Transgenerational inheritance also includes epigenetic, physiological, behavioral, ecological, and cultural. Table 1. Biological observations identified as appearing to be anomalous to the dominant conceptual framework for adaptation and differentiation (Bateson 2014; Danchin et al 2011; Endara et al 2017; Esquerre and Keogh 2016; Deem 2013; Hull et al 2017; Laland et al 2014; Laland et al 2015; Muller 2017; Reigner 2015; Shapiro 2013)