Every observable adaptation is simply a logical alteration

An alteration triggered by environment

Organisms perform time-triggered alterations analogous to the slight and petty demands of their changing environment

No historically observed nor any modern alterations of living organisms have ever merited the classification of "New"

As in "New Organism"

Environmental changes (even in history's span of x# years) still fail to offer proof of a start towards radical "New Organisms"

Earth's base environment is hostile and yet contradictory enough to offer and maintain life

The individual organisms found within earth's environment must have a flexible way of defending themselves against the random changes that are inflicted upon them

The observation of adapting salamander eyes being a basis for right/wrong comparison against creationist views is BS and cheap

Everything adapts [slightly] in order to defend (preserve) itself

But

Defense is not a function by which a creation is begun

Defensive nature is ran-dumb

JK Kellar asserts: No historically observed nor any modern alterations of living organisms have ever merited the classification of 'New'.

LeRoy: You are quite wrong. From the Wikipedia entry on Raphanobrassica:

includes all intergeneric hybrids between the genera Raphanus (radish) and Brassica (cabbages, etc). The name comes from the combination of the genus names for radish and cabbage. Some botanists prefer to use the name Brassicoraphanus, particularly for plants derived from a cross where Brassica was the maternal parent (but neither name has been validly published).

The first Raphanobrassica or "rabbage", an allopolyploid cross between the radish (Raphanus sativus) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea), was obtained by the Soviet agronomist Georgi Dmitrievich Karpechenko, in 1928.

Plants of this parentage are now known as radicole. Two other fertile forms of Raphanobrassica are known. Raparadish, an allopolyploid hybrid between Raphanus sativus and Brassica rapa is grown as a fodder crop. "Raphanofortii" is the allopolyploid hybrid between Brassica tournefortii and Raphanus caudatus.

For gastronomists, (those interested in food) this plant may have seemed a disappointment, since all the resulting hybrids of this crossing have radish leaves and cabbage roots -- the two non-edible parts of its ancestors. For biologists, however, the Raphanobrassica is an extremely interesting plant, because - in spite of its hybrid nature - it is not sterile. This led some botanists to propose that the accidental hybridization of a flower by pollen of another species in nature could be a mechanism of speciation common in higher plants. Currently, it is thought that a great part of the flowering plants have some hybridization among their ancestors, particularly in the case of the orchids.

“”Every observable adaptation is simply a logical alteration”

>>Any ‘adaptation’ that’s the result of a change in genetic composition, that s inheritable, is evolutionary change by definition.

“An alteration triggered by environment”

>>Individuals do adapt in response to environmental stressors—for example, multiple physiologic changes occur which improve aerobic capacity when athletes train at higher altitudes.

But evolutionary change isn’t triggered by environment, but rather changes that occur randomly at a low but non-zero frequency within a population are selected for or against with respect to environment. (e.g., adding antibiotics to a bacterial culture’s medium doesn’t cause genetic changes conferring resistance—subpopulations of bacteria within the larger population that already possess alleles conferring resistance contribute to the next generation’s gene pool to a greater extent than those that do not possess alleles conferring resistance.)

“Organisms perform time-triggered alterations analogous to the slight and petty demands of their changing environment”

>>What are you talking about here? This doesn’t model seem to either adaptive or evolutionary change.

“No historically observed nor any modern alterations of living organisms have ever merited the classification of "New"”

>>Nonsense: we’ve directly observed new species arise from existing ones as the result of evolutionary change, we’ve directly observed new biological activities arise in existing populations as the result of evolutionary change (for example, flavobacterium K172 gained the ability to digest nylon oligomers as the result of an insertion mutation—a additional Thymidine at position 99 of the Nyl B allele.)

“As in "New Organism"

>>A new species by definition is a new organism, and we’ve observed multiple speciation events, in plants, insects, vertebrates, etc.

“Environmental changes (even in history's span of x# years) still fail to offer proof of a start towards radical "New Organisms"

>>The direct observation of a new species arising by descent from an existing species is just such a start.

“Everything adapts [slightly] in order to defend (preserve) itself”

>>This isn’t accurate—you’re suggesting evolutionary change is goal-oriented—that it occurs for the purpose of ‘defending itself’. This isn’t the case.

Great observation Leroy, very illuminating and interesting. But still, why bother trying to argue with those that don't believe in reason?

They hear but wont listen, they have got the worst kind of deafness