An accurate analogy of Evolution by Natural selection

Here's a better one -Chain Letters.Now, with the age of email and fax machines, this no longer occurs however...Waaay back in the day when chain letters were all the rage, people would have to literally retype them.When that happened, small changes would occur.From time to time embelishments on the story, or a typo in the name in one of the "one man didn't copy the letter and..." stories.There have been studies where people have collected various versions of a chain letter and, through evaluating these "mutations" were able to trace it back and show the branches in its evolution.Now, the problem with this analogy is that it's not something people are familiar with in their day to day life.However, the advantage is...
Chain Letter EvolutionYou can send them to look at the info

Not true. Better letters are more likely to get read, copied and resent while letters which are less influential are more likely to end up in the trash.

The problem is that there are certain key phrases that show up from time to time on the tips of the tongues of Creationists.Here are a few:
"If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
"If the Earth is so old, why aren't we completely buried in fossils?"
"It's just a theory"Here's one that's a little less common:
"If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved"When you refer to it as a "living fossil", you need to understand that that is not a scientific term but rather a magazine title term.The coelocanth is obviously not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is a living fish, not a mineralized impression of a fish which is somehow magically alive.It's likewise not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is not the same species, or frankly family, as the fish found in fossils. It's a descendant just like many other fishes. It's just that this descendant has a number of physical characteristics which were more common in the past and have generally disappeared in modern day.However, if you meant "living fossil" in the sense that "Hey, here's something which is alive which still looks kinda like this thing in the fossil record" (unlike say T-Rex or triceratops, etc) then sure. It's a "living fossil" in that narrow sense.