gories of symbiosis, and how many alliances can transition from one type of relationship to another (Douglas 2010; Hennigan et al. 2022; Paracer and Ahmadjian 2000; Wood and Garner 2009). The book of Genesis suggests that God initially created organism archetypes fully formed and capable of complex relational interactions that were good and very good (Francis 2003; Francis and Wood 2013; Hennigan 2009A; Zuill 2000; Zuill 2007). Even today, symbiotic relationships are ubiquitous, involve a complex diversity of species, and are at the core of biospheric health and biogeochemical processes. However, the consequences of human rebellion and God’s curse resulted in suffering, pain, relational disruption, and death. Evolutionists posit that unguided natural processes resulted in these relationships as they initially evolved and co-evolved via struggle and competition leading to cooperation and system self-organization (Douglas 2010; Hennigan et al. 2022; Lazcano and Peretó 2017; Paracer and Ahmadjian 2000; Perry 1995; Sagan 1967). Therefore, a creation model of symbiotic relationships is needed within the larger model of young age creation to better explain the complexity of symbiotic relationships within a Design/Fall/Curse paradigm (Guliuzza and Gaskill 2018; Hennigan and Guliuzza 2019). In a recent paper Hennigan et al. (2022) proposed a design model of symbiotic relationships (MOSR) focused on the interface. The interface is the boundary, on each organism, where interactions take place. This model uses human engineered analogues as a basis for describing how two or more autonomous organisms can recognize, cooperate, and regulate resources with one another, in a tightly controlled relationship (Guliuzza and Sherwin 2016). It was suggested that daunting interface requirements needed for organisms to interact may be described more precisely using engineered analogues, rather than the random selection/self-organization explanations put forth in the conventional evolution model. Applying an engineering approach to biology identifies multiple, bounded individual kinds of self-regulated entities—a host and a microbe—with no loss of distinctiveness or identity. Some researchers may believe that hosts and other organisms engage in seamless “interactions,” but engineering analysis clearly shows that there really is a seam. To not recognize the seam may advance misleading conclusions about autonomy-blurring amalgamations such as human-microbe mosaics, supra-organisms, or trans-human collectives. The understanding of distinct kinds of organisms, including humanity, may become fuzzy. In this view, parasites taking nutrients from a host may be a violation of distinct boundaries of one entity upon another. This contrasts with mutualism, where all organisms involved are working together to share resources, which may not violate interface boundaries. We posit that organisms were initially created with interfaces designed for the purpose of enabling sender-receiver relationships. Immune systems are an example of an interface. As will be shown, identification of non-self does not automatically activate immune defense and the most contemporary research and understanding of immune systems is bearing this out (Guliuzza and Sherwin 2016; Padariya et al. 2021). With immune systems, identification of non-self will activate protocols that bring on a pre-programmed or consequential response that may not involve defense or destruction in any way. If destruction is activated, it is for regulation and control and not necessarily defense. Even so-called friendly or good microbes are destroyed by the same mechanisms as the bad microbes if the good ones are not in the locations and/or amounts the host is designed to work with at certain times or under certain environmental conditions. The overwhelming majority of interactions with microbes are mutually beneficial and we suggest discussing symbiotic relationships in terms of a requester-provider and symbiont-symbiont creation framework. In this paper we will discuss how researchers are exploring the black box workings of globally important symbionts and highlight a few well researched mutual and parasitic symbioses. Since more research needs to be done on commensalism and relationships can often be on a continuum of mutual, commensal, and parasitic, we will not address commensalism in depth at this time. However, we will allude to it in our discussion below as avenues for future research. We suggest that microbial interface systems were designed to facilitate cooperation and not mortal combat between creatures. Those systems, along with other interfacing mechanisms, are the links making up the myriads of ecological networks enabling creatures to work together in mutually beneficial ways, most of which are still beneficial after the Fall. Some seem to have been corrupted, though more research is needed to determine if actual corruption has taken place. Our Creator and King - Father and Savior - desires to be known. His invisible attributes such as life, design, and intimate relationships are clearly seen and understood, from what has been made (Holy Bible Romans 1:20). II. SCIENTIFIC, ENGINEERING, AND BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Model organisms and scientific models of symbiosis Model organisms are non-human species that are scrupulously researched to uncover details of complex biological processes and relationships. There are many that are important in symbiotic research, and they have revealed amazing complexities with diverse organisms that are intimately interacting with each other. Symbiotic model organisms include Azolla sp. (water fern), important agricultural legumes such as Lotus japonicus, Medicago truncatula (barrel clover), Glycine max (soybean), Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) and animals such as Porifera (sponges), Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies), Danio rerio (zebra fish), Mus sp. (mice) and Aiptasia sp. (sea anemones) (de Vries and de Vries 2018; Neuhauser and Fargione 2004; Pita et al. 2016; Rӓdecker et al. 2019; Roy et al. 2020). Based on findings from model organism research, there are several scientific models that attempt to explain how and why organisms interact in a variety of ways. They include game theory models (e.g., prisoners dilemma where hypotheses are formulated to explain why partners may not cooperate even when it benefits them), biological market models (e.g., where organisms entering relationships can influence the cost of resources and how much one or both are willing to pay for it, depending on location and time of resource interaction), and competition and predator/prey models such as Lotka-Volterra modeling (Chess 1988; Frank 1997; Neuhauser and Fargione 2004; van’t Padje et al. 2020). While some of these models give important insights into complex symbioses, including how some organisms HENNIGAN, GULIUZZA, INGLE, and LANSDELL Interface systems model in key global symbiotic relationships 2023 ICC 229
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=