An accurate analogy of Evolution by Natural selection

Why do have such a need for an analogy? You will never find a close analogy. Do you even understand what evolution is? There is no entity picking out the best. What is the criteria for the best in evolution? That which survives, I guess. Your analogy has a predetermined idea of what is best. Sometimes the most different form the previous generation will be more prone to survive. There are so many issues with your analogy it is tough to decide where to start, so I won't bother.It seems to me that you want to have this analogy accepted so that you can make the point that as generations go forward quality goes down. Therefore,you will claim, there is some sort of law of thermodynamics thing that things resort to to chaos. You are very transparent. No one has agreed with you that this is a good analogy. No matter how many times you adjust it or claim it it is, it wont get better.The analogy sucks. Your premise sucks. Why don't you just get to you point. Tell us what you think the outcome of your analogy would be.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Has anyone told you it was a good analogy? 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

Then why make arguments that you don't even understand. You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you try to make a point.Do you read what your sources say?
From your talkorigins link.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

---

This says nothing about not changing? Says largely unchanged but nothing about the ideal or no change. What about superficial changes?Also, from same source

quote:

---

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

---

So your point was???Not exactly unchanging would you say?Edited by Theodoric, : Another quote

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts