Does everyone around here agree with you ???
Has anyone told you it was a good analogy?
I think I very CLEARLY said that my analogy represented a static environment. In a static environment, the species is already fine-tuned to that environment, and so if it doesn't change, then the next generations should be very similar to the original, since they are in the same environment.
So your analogy isn't really an analogy, because there is a caveat that it is nothing like the reality of evolution. Tell me where a static environment exists and how would we determine that a species is fine tuned for this static environment? That in itself destroys your whole premise that this is a good analogy.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts