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

colonization of an “empty niche” (i.e., an environment not previously inhabited by a species)—and its potential contribution to diversification can be extensive. Susoy, et al.’s work (2016) on the fig-associated nematode Pristionchus found “macroevolutionary-scale diversification without genetic divergence…[so] that rapid filling of potential ecological niches is possible without diversifying selection on genotypes. This uncoupling of morphological diversification and speciation in fig- associated nematodes has resulted from a remarkable expansion of discontinuous developmental plasticity” (p. 1). The morphotypic changes exceeded what would be observed at the species level. They summarize that “…given the ‘empty niche’ conditions predisposing an ecosystem to the trophic diversification of its colonists…and [given] that developmental plasticity can lead to the multiplication of discontinuous novelties from a single genotype” (p.6) substantial phenotypic change can precede speciation. Finally, we found that many taxa exhibit mechanisms that enable reversal to ancestral states in future generations. This ability correlates to a useful “turn back” mechanism that engineers embed in tracking systems on drones. It seems reasonable that organisms could also reverse direction so that they could escape getting trapped in a genetic dead-end. It appears this can occur through the persistence of underlying “developmental architecture” (Galis, et al. 2010) that “reanimates” genetically mothballed features. This compares to engineered “turn off-turn on” control mechanisms. The fact that genetic and developmental pathways can be deactivated but remain functionally intact for generations (giving the appearance of a “lost” trait), and then reactivated during embryonic development in future generations, is mechanistic evidence of how some populations can continuously track environmental changes even over long periods. Evidence for reversibility at phenotypic and morphotypic levels appears contrary to evolutionary and heterozygous fractionation models. Thus, it appears that multiple mechanisms exist which direct variation toward specific adaptive responses to specific environmental changes, contrary to the classical view with its reliance on random variation. These mechanisms can reasonably be described as “tracking” the environment in the sense that they appear to detect environmental changes, process this information, and then adjust traits in an adaptive manner. Thus, they appear to have features correlating to all three components of man-made tracking systems (sensors, logic mechanisms, output responses), just as expected from our Continuous Environmental Tracking hypothesis. 2. Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) is the foundation for adaptation CET is purely a descriptive title for what creatures seem to do as they adapt. CET assumes that the most accurate way to explain the function of adaptable biological systems is with the same engineering principles that govern human-engineered tracking systems. CET, therefore, could become the basis for a new framework (i.e., framing observations, interpreting facts, and guiding research) meant to replace the current framework for understanding adaptability. This engineering-based, organism- focused characterization of organism’s systems is only changing the way existing data are organized and interpreted. This means that other approaches are not necessarily excluded. With CET, we assert that adaptation primarily occurs during embryonic and juvenile development (genotype, morphotype, phenotype), and as the result of continuous surveillance and shadowing of the environment (i.e., response to environmental parameters made possible by sensors and mechanisms), and secondarily as an adult response to environmental dynamics (phenotype, epigenotype) (Figure 1). This assertion is made based on our findings (highlighted in Results and detailed in Table 2) regarding the observed internal mechanisms of adaptive change. The current framework of random variation, randomly efficacious hit-and-miss responses, and subsequent death-driven fractionation, is not excluded as an explanation, but either demoted in importance or, more properly, seen as a contrary process. Instead, this approach views organisms as active, problem-solving entities that respond to environmental challenges instead of passive entities which are shaped by environmental challenges. CET thus implies that adaptation is fundamentally produced by regulated gene expression and not gene inheritance, per se. Adaptation at the population level then results from a combination of directed variation in individuals (resulting from CET during all life stages) and differential inheritance of those variations (i.e., from unequal distribution and reproduction) by the next generation. Guliuzza and Gaskill ◀ How organisms continuously track environmental changes ▶ 2018 ICC 166 Genotype Morphotype Phenotype ( ) Epigenotype | Juvenile Adult Process of Development (individual) Increasing Age / Decreasing Plasticity Embryo Continuous Environmental Tracking Sensors – detect conditions Logic Mechanisms – process information Output Responses adjust traits Figure 1 . Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) results in adaptation at every stage of development through the detection of changes in environmental conditions (via Sensors), processing of condition-response information (via Logic Mechanisms), and adjustment of traits (via Output Responses).