This is a truly awful analogy, but even if it weren't, you'd have to deal with the following: Firstly you claimed the watch analogy was incredibly unlikely, then you went on to imply it was impossible [i]because[/i] it was unlikely. Anyone should be able to see the inconsistency (and flagrant dishonesty) there. Given enough time, the unlikely becomes almost inevitable. For example I might not have much chance of winning the lottery on any given week, but after a billion years I would be unlucky if it hadn't happened several times. And so we come to this old analogy. We take all the parts from the watch and shake them around in the box. They do not fit together correctly. Then we repeat the experiment with millions of watches in boxes at a time (representing the amount of breeding animals of whatever species) and repeat that experiment for 4.5 billion years. Can you still confidently claim that it wouldn't ever produce a watch? To be honest I don't really see how this could represent evolution anyway. It seems it would draw a better parallel with abiogenesis (the origin of life), not evolution (the mechanism that gave us the diversity of life). But I didn't choose it so it's not my problem I guess. Now I fully expect to be muted, as that seems to be your general response to anything you can't dispute, but I thought it was worth trying to explain it to you.