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

that adaptation results from heritable programming intended to enable creatures to adapt and fill changing niches. Continuous Environmental Tracking is the foundation of a new framework for understanding adaptation, but several key gaps in our framework need to be filled by further research. For instance, we predict further investigation will demonstrate that many variations which are assumed to be—but never documented to be—random in nature were never random at all but directed. Also, more research on sensors in needed. It is notable that only a small fraction of the papers we reviewed identified a sensor for the exposure of interest. In addition, they did not indicate that identification of the sensor and the signaling pathway would be an important area of future research. Though it would be likely that most researchers would instruct students against drawing a causal link between the association of an exposure to an outcome without providing a plausible biological mechanism to explain the outcome, most researchers were content to report that the exposure caused the response. Yet, it seems that during experimental setup they did intuitively look for something in their research subject that would relate directly to the exposure. Also requiring more research is the characterization of the reversibility of adaptation and the determination of whether it is rare or common. Additionally, analysis of whether heterozygous fractionation models can plausibly explain reversibility is lacking, and more analysis of the role and impact of genetic loading and genetic drift on adaptation in a CET-based framework is needed. In this vein, more work needs to be done to detail how a CET-based framework differs in assumptions, concepts, interpretations, and predictions from current theory. The CET framework demonstrates that an engineering-based, organism-focused framework can contribute to science because it does suggest testable hypothesis about biological function— that are being overlooked under the current theory—and make predictions of findings In addition to illuminating regulated mechanisms producing targeted responses and system elements corresponding to human-designed tracking systems, CET provides an engineering-based explanation for epigenetic mechanisms as a way for organisms to rapidly “flex” phenotypically to sudden environmental changes and then possibly revert to “baseline.” CET allows for episodic changes by tracking mechanisms that can “step up” or “step down” as needed, perhaps without producing noticeable intermediate forms. CET expects and explains “convergence” by diverse organisms on similar traits and thus accounts for why some evolutionists now claim that evolution is “predictable.” CET goes beyond simply asserting that common function is due to common design, since CET specifies the systems which are the common design and can anticipate where the common traits might appear. CET incorporates the engineering principles that are likely essential to make correct cause-effect associations for biological functions. Engineering causality is different from philosophical, psychological, theological, or other causation. Engineering causation focuses on whole systems and not individual elements. Since the entire system ceases to function with the loss of any vital element, no single element is declared to be causal. Engineering causes are distinguished by clarity, objectivity, and thoroughness. Only verifiable elements are included—and no vital element is omitted—in causal chains. Research informed by engineering principles searches for all system elements within an organism that must exist between its detection of environmental exposures and its conditioned self-adjustments. We note increasing calls to reform or replace the current framework, yet “reformers” themselves have not integrated a replacement. One impression is that the field of evolutionary biology is somewhat in disarray and that practitioners are having difficulty framing the discussion regarding how to explain these new mechanisms. We see this as an opportunity to set the agenda. We suggest that many anomalous findings are explained within the CET framework. CET is not simply a critique of the insufficiencies of adaptationism, random mutations, or selectionism. It is a new engineering-based, organism-focused model that flows from the latest findings from molecular biology—identifying sensing systems and logic mechanisms which direct suitable responses ranging from rapid physiologic changes to multi-generational modifications. Most importantly, it fundamentally changes the way we perceive organisms; from passive modeling clay shaped over time by the vicissitudes of nature, to active, problem-solving entities that continuously track changing environmental conditions to better fit existing environmental niches or fill new ones. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Dr. Mark Horstemeyer for his extensive review of our earlier drafts and his valuable assistance with our paper’s structure and content. We also thank Dr. Joe Francis for his persistence and creative solutions to the unpredictable challenges of the review process. In addition, discussions with Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins and correspondence with several anonymous reviewers provided important information and helpful comments. REFERENCES Agashe, D., M. Sane, K. Phalnikar, G. Diwan, A. Habibullah, N. MartinezGomez, V. Sahasrabuddhe, W. Polachek, J. Wang, and L.M. Chubiz. 2016. Large-effect beneficial synonymous mutations mediate rapid and parallel adaptation in a bacterium. Molecular Biological Evolution 33:1542–1553. Amardeep, A., K. Turkarslan, K. Beer, F. Mast, J. Smith, J. Aitchison, and N. Baliga. 2017. Adaptive prediction emerges over short evolutionary time scales. Genome Biology and Evolution , 9, no. 6: 1616–1623. Amos, W. 2016. Heterozygosity increases microsatellite mutation rate. Biology Letters 12, no. 1: 20150929. Barrnett, R. J., J.E. Mazurkiewicz, and J.S. Addis. 1983. Avian salt gland: Amodel for the study of membrane biogenesis. Methods in Enzymology 96:627-659. Bateson, P. 2014. New thinking about biological evolution. Biological Journal of Linnaean Society 112:268–275. Bateson, P. 2017. Adaptability and evolution. Interface Focus 7, no, 5:20160126. Bateson, P., N. Cartwright, J. Dupré, K. Laland, and D. Noble. 2017. New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives. Interface Focus 7, no. 5:20170051. Blackman, S. and R. Popoli. 1999. Design and Analysis of Modern Tracking Systems . Norwood, MA.: Artech House. Guliuzza and Gaskill ◀ How organisms continuously track environmental changes ▶ 2018 ICC 170