No, it's an explanation of why the watch analogy is terrible. It shows a very poor understanding of genetics, natural selection, and evolution in general.

So why was it in response to my comment?

Because you seem to think the watch analogy actually makes sense.

Where does it not

I've already explained why this is a terrible analogy for evolution, but I'll do it again because you seem a bit slow. 1) There's only one combination of parts that will make a functioning watch. There are hundreds of trillions of combinations to make functioning organisms. 2) Evolution doesn't have the most complex organisms simply coming into existence, as in the watch analogy. Evolution describes how simple organisms grew into more complex organisms. 3) Evolution isn't entirely random. Shaking the watch pieces is completely random. Evolution has random components such as mutation and genetic drift, but natural selection, the most important factor, is anything but random. If you think the watch analogy makes any sense at all in regards to evolution, you clearly don't understand the subject. I'm guessing this is the case, because you have yet to respond using any logic or science, even bad logic or science. You just keep dodging all my points. In your next reply, please make it clear that you both read and understood my explanations, and give logical arguments of your own.

Ok I see how it is a poor analogy for evolution it would have better been used in response to the creation of life

A bit better, but still not perfect. Besides, science doesn't have a clear answer as to the origin of life. Evolution describes how existing life changed over time.