Yes, it has changed over time.

DWA: The ordering in biology is merely an after-the-fact approximating construct attempt, there, it seems to me. I see a parallel in the intelligently designed Dewey decimal system in some of the libraries. But there, with books, (products of some intelligence) logical groupings are just known to be imposed by the "great" central librarian/bystander/investigator/observer. The books in various categories from various printers largely could emerge/occur in any sequence. Absurdity: Did the Dewey Decimal system evolve out of nothing, then?

Our classification of living things is an after-the-fact attempt at recognizing order, but the basis for such classifications is based on similarities in morphology that reflect presumed ancestor/descendant relationships. In most cases, those classifications are supported by a variety of lines of convergent evidence. The fact that both the Dewey Decimal system and our current biological classifications are human constructs doesn't invalidate the characteristics that are being classified.

And no, the DDS didn't evolve out of nothing. There were libraries long before there was Dewey.

DWA: In "brief": We don't exactly know how, why and when each distinctive characteristic of animals sequentially originated. So, it seems only roughly possible to know by rock layers that a presumed evolution sequence occurred.

That provides a starting point that can be supported or falsified by subsequent findings. Note the term "falsified". It isn't necessary to have every fact in order to generate a classification, even if more data usually means better assignment.

DWA: As to being a "natural" process, that's not really knowable from some hard old rocks, no time machines sitting on the Jurassic Park movie set.

Then we just have to deal with what we CAN find.

DWA: Appearance in rock layers has nothing to do with presence or absence of "intelligence", IMO.

So, if you found a watch in a Cambrian deposit, you wouldn't assume that intelligence had been involved in its production?

DWA: Anyway, it's NOW known/believed in the science community, traits are added *and* subtracted in populations. Somehow, that would tend to muddy up the sequencing "waters", who came first, IMO.

It does muddy them somewhat, but it doesn't mean that they didn't change over time and it doesn't require intelligent involvement.

DWA: Risking absurdity, (on retreat?) it could seem that accidental genetic drift events, if that is the case, are filtered, then, by the intelligently designed life entities, possibly in/under the stock watering tank. Be a nice tyrant, take a rest, drink some spiked lemonade, and agree with me. Heheh.

It could have happened, but what evidence exists that it DID happen instead of variation occurring through natural means? Those designers would have had to spend 3 1/2 billion years under that tank without getting caught. That would be an even more impressive achievement than the organisms they made.

DWA: How many times did the first brave or desperate crawler lungfish go back into the water, before finally staying out for good?

Probably many times, although don't forget that there are STILL lungfish, so they didn't stay out for good anyhow.

DWA: Understanding "junk" DNA might tell us? I think so, possibly, with a "complete" picture of the primal landscape.

It might help, although it will be a tough read after all these years.

DWA: Likewise, for the anaconda, how many times did "they"/us try losing their/our legs before finally settling on that "snake" design, for the altruistic betterment of the whole biosphere?

It took a while. There is some controversy about the number of lineages leading to modern snakes. Some lizards appear to be heading in that direction even now.

DWA: I will confidently continue to presume for now that detailed high resolution empirical fossil evidence in many, many lines of descent is scarce and incomplete, and not reposing in any "library" within 100 light years of this sun.

So, again we need to deal with the evidence we do have. Don't you think your designers should be keeping records? Our Earth-bound felons have a long track record of keeping accounts of things that they should have shredded. What about your invisible bio-perps?

DWA: More absurdity games: By the popularizing press "chicken is a T. rex" "logic", the anaconda is actually a T. rex, too, and has its own reserved "lizard" spot on the twisted "evolution" theory/hierarchy/cladism tree.

No, the evidence suggests that snakes and lizards diverged from archosaurs before there were dinosaurs or birds.

DWA: What precludes an anaconda from eventually descending from a T. rex that got stranded in the Sargasso Sea without water wings?

Most importantly, skull structure. The pelvis in early snakes, when they still had them, were markedly different from dinosaur pelvises too.

DWA: Impossible?

No, but very unlikely.

DWA: There's a feathered boa, isn't there?

Are you talking about the mythical Quetzalcoatl of Aztec fame or the selection hanging in your closet?

DWA: Conclusion: Chicken=anaconda=tyrannosaurus rex. Okay? Right?

No, wrong.

-----------------------------anaconda
:
-------------tyrannosaurs
:
---------------------chicken