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

approximately the last 4000 years. His data could be interpreted as episodic speciation across diverse taxa as they track rapid and slower rates of environmental change. Though Jeanson interprets the data as a linear change, we see his plotted data as consistently resembling episodic graphs. These data seem to fit CET well since an abrupt and extensive change in conditions seems more likely to lead to the appearance of unique characteristics. Tight environmental tracking could show a tendency of traits to change rapidly at times and then, during periods of steadier environmental change, organisms would “ratchet” an ever-closer fit of their traits to the conditions—a phenomenon which was noted by Reigner (2015). Rohner et al. (2013) demonstrates that complex traits in organisms can appear in a single step as they track sudden changes in conditions. This observation fits the episodic changes we see in Jeanson’s data and may explain why some species could appear without morphological intermediates. J. CET harmonizes rapid acquisitions of similar traits by diverse organisms A remarkable biological phenomenon occurs when two unrelated organisms express very similar traits (usually in similar environments), or the when offspring rapidly express similar new traits when relocated to remote islands with similar conditions. A tracking mechanism could explain how two or more groups of organisms arrive at a specific phenotypic “location.” Thus, if two unrelated organisms are actively tracking similar environmental changes and their internal logic centers use similar algorithms to directly express suitable traits as responses, then the fact that they exhibit similar features is explained as a particular and necessary consequence of similar internal planswithin independent organisms. For example, Esquerre and Keogh (2016) show that pythons and boas display strong and widespread morphological similarity when they occupy equivalent ecological niches ranging from arboreal to aquatic. They demonstrate strong coupling of similar phenotypic traits to ecological diversification. Losos (2017) documents a similar coupling of rapid, predictable phenotypic expressions in equivalent ecological niches in anolis lizards—and across many other taxa—which appears to be normal throughout the known history of some groups of organisms (Moen et al. 2015). These appear to be targeted solutions in independent groups of organisms following a specific plan which rapidly closes in on similarly suitable traits. This may be better described as “rendezvous” rather than “convergence.” CONCLUSION Bateson et al. (2017) welcomes sharp, legitimate differences of interpretation regarding data. Hence, we offer a new framework for understanding biological adaptability that reinterprets findings in the literature in view of the assumption that biological systems and functions are most accurately explained by engineering principles. Using an engineering approach to reinterpret data led us to an engineering-based, organism-focused characterization of adaptation. We hypothesized that organisms actively and continuously track environmental variables and respond by self- adjusting to changing environments—utilizing the engineering principles that constrain how human-designed things adapt to changing conditions—resulting in adaptation. We termed this hypothesis Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET). CET expects to find that organisms adapt by using mechanisms with elements analogous to those underlying the self-adjustable property of human-engineered tracking systems. These are: input sensors, internal logic mechanisms to select suitable responses, and output actuators to execute responses. We came to our 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. Reinterpreting observations of behavior suggests a new description of what organisms achieve when they adapt: i.e., the design objective . Organisms appear to continuously track environmental changes and self-adjust with suitable and often heritable traits, resulting in adaptation. A basic design constraint is that the capacities for a designed entity to both relate to—and adapt to—external conditions must be built entirely into an entity. Interpreting the data to identify the location of adaptive capacity at the organism-environment interface suggested that, without exception, adaptive mechanisms reside internal to organisms; mechanisms controlling how adaptation happens appear internally regulated and integrated. Engineers identify external conditions pertinent to performance as variables. They are either present or not. Using engineering principles to interpret the role of external conditions suggests that conditions are detected and their presence is recognized as input data that innate systems process. Additionally, external conditions themselves were interpreted from an engineering approach as insufficient to cause the production of adaptive traits. To evaluate whether biological function could be framed by an engineering approach, and in order to determine if the CET hypothesis is valid, we performed an extensive literature review for study results across various taxa. We identified multiple internal mechanisms utilizing diverse sensors coupled to complex logic mechanisms that produced condition-specific output responses. Not only did organisms use elements analogous to engineered tracking systems, they were used in ways that can readily be interpreted as continuously tracking environmental changes. Biological adaptations often occurred within one generation. We found an array of phenotypic self-adjustments functioning as purposely designed “targeted solutions” to the challenges of dynamic external conditions. Adaptations frequently occurred from well-organized modifications of genetic output, often executed at points during development that significantly affect the traits at an organism’s environmental interface. CET thus implies that adaptation is fundamentally produced by regulated gene expression and not gene inheritance, per se. The underlying mechanisms enabling biological adaptations can be described as non-random. This observation is in stark contrast to the randomness characterizing the standard framework that posits tiny, accidental “hit-and-miss” phenotypic adjustments fractioned out to lucky survivors of deadly challenges. Adaptive mechanisms were characterized as regulated, rapid, repeatable, and predictable. This depiction is anomalous to selectionism’s iterative stacking of fortuitous results, precisely because regulated, rapid, repeatable, and predictable describe purposeful outcomes of engineered systems. But, it is consistent with an engineering-based premise Guliuzza and Gaskill ◀ How organisms continuously track environmental changes ▶ 2018 ICC 169