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

3. CET aptly describes the evidence Theorists are still absorbing the full implications of these newly- discovered internal mechanisms of adaptation and are trying to determine if they fit within current theory. So now, in this rare time of unsettled and open-ended discourse among evolutionary scientists over theories of adaptation, it is very appropriate to frame new findings using an engineering-based, organism-focused structure into which they seem to naturally fit. We now consider additional observations within the literature which seem to point to CET, clarify what CET implies, and favorably contrast an internalistic, engineering-based framework to current theory. A. “Regulated,” “rapid,” “repeatable,” and “reversible” describe adaptable tracking systems A significant observation from the literature review is that internal mechanisms of adaptation yield responses habitually characterized as “regulated,” “rapid,” very often “repeatable,” and, surprisingly at times, even “reversible.” These words fittingly describe the purposeful outcomes of robust, adaptable engineered tracking systems. Prior to the discovery of regulated phenotypic outcomes, Stephen J. Gould (1994) contrasted the random, death- driven parsing out of genetic variation he assumed was evidence supporting current theory, with the controlled, purposeful outcomes of internally-regulated systems. He said, “natural selection is a theory of ‘trial and error externalism’—organisms propose via their storehouse of variation, and environments dispose of nearly all—not an efficient and human ‘goal-directed internalism’ (which would be fast and lovely, but nature does not know the way)” (p. 6). New findings provide evidence that “nature” does indeed “know the way.” B. Innate capacity controls responses to the environment Consistent with Gould’s recognition that the internalist and externalist approaches are contradictory, discoveries of internal systems producing what seem like targeted responses are forcing a move away from environment-driven, selectionist explanations. Researchers have started coining terms for adaptive mechanisms that descriptively sound very close to engineered, innate capacity such as: “stem plasticity” (Susoy et al. 2016, p. 6), “standing genetic variation” (Rohner et al. 2013, p. 1372), “natural genetic engineering” (Shapiro 2011, p. 161), “cryptic genetic variation” (Sangster et al, 2008, p. 2963), “facilitated phenotypic variation” (Gerhart and Kirschner 2007, p. 8582), “adaptively inducible canalizers” (Meiklejohn and Hartl 2002, p. 468), and “evolutionary capacitors” (Rutherford and Lindquist 1998, p. 336). All of these terms describe means to access innate self-adjusting capacity for what Waddington noted in 1942 as, “a suitable genetically controlled reactivity in the organism” which he referred to as “a set of alternative canalyzed [innate] paths” (Waddington 1942, p. 564, 565). Taken together, these results establish a growing recognition that internal systems specify if organisms can, and how they will, relate to external conditions. C. Diverse inheritance mechanisms facilitate transgenerational environmental tracking Most of the mechanisms reviewed here demonstrate that organisms utilize input elements (sensors) to sense environmental conditions, logic mechanisms to interpret those inputs and determine responses, and output mechanisms to implement responses. Additionally, these same elements are utilized in tandem to trans-generationally track environmental changes in two distinct steps. That is, first, the parent directly detects an environmental change, which is processed, and then an output response is sent into the milieu of the developing offspring which, second, detects it and responds with self-adjusted phenotypic outputs suitable to conditions detected by the parent. Recall the paternal mouse’s detection of acetophenone—which started the process leading to epigenetic modifications in offspring modifying expression of the M71 gene, as documented in the work of Dias and Ressler (2014). A Duke University study on the tiny worm C . elegans observed detailed maternal-to-offspring signals about a nutrition-deprived environment (Hibshman et al 2016). It described “a genetic network that mediates effects of a mother’s diet on the size and starvation resistance of her offspring” that worked by “signaling through [an] insulin-like receptor” which “function in the mother to transmit information about her diet to her offspring.” Remarkably similar findings, most likely due to epigenetic modifications, were noted for humans as well. Children born to parents exposed to starvation during conception and gestation had an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and hyperglycemia, which indicated to researchers that in-utero epigenetic modifications predisposed them to be calorie hoarders in the face of being born into a starvation environment. The transgenerational odds of developing hyperglycemia were about 2:1 in both children and grandchildren, while there was about a 75% increased risk of type 2 diabetes in the children of starved parents (Li et al 2016). We are not arguing that cross-generational variability of traits that could result from standing heterozygosity is not a source of adaptive phenotypes, but that this mode of inheritance should be viewed no differently than any other trait that is a product of internally regulated systems that produce a potential solution to an environmental challenge. Furthermore, the mechanisms described here signal that the penultimate role in the current framework accorded to genetics, primarily genes, to propel adaptation should be diminished. Evidence indicates that the genome may function as any other sub-system of the cell since, ultimately, it is the organism which senses and responds to external variables (Keller 2014). But it should also be noted that the traits derived during development principally under genetic/epigenetic control are an important, but not the sole, determinant of the fit of offspring to its niche. Heredity would broadly include all mechanisms facilitating offspring-parent resemblance that promote the maintenance of homeostasis or enhance the suitability of an organism to its niche, which includes: genetic, epigenetic of all types, physiological, microbial symbionts, behaviors, physical resources, parent-altered ecological niches, and population-modified cultures. These mechanisms are wide-ranging in mode of transmission, rate of effect, and manner of action. D. Environmental tracking starts as a developmental necessity Environmental tracking begins early in development and continues throughout the lifetime of an individual organism. An engineering- based, organism-focused framework doesn’t view organisms as constructed by their parents or their environment. Organisms begin with innate capacity to self-construct, self-metabolize, self-maintain, self-repair, self-adjust, reproduce, and transfer an inheritance. Genetic and non-genetic factors transferred fromparent Guliuzza and Gaskill ◀ How organisms continuously track environmental changes ▶ 2018 ICC 167