No. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that I am failing to adequately impress upon you the nature and relevance of my objections. For that, allow me to apologize and take another whack at it.
The analogies assume an actor and intentionality, but actors and intentionality are not critical to what the analogies are getting at. EVEN IF someone was deliberately trying to edit the ur-Hamlet into the final Hamlet by small changes, there is no plausible path through intermediates that are of the class "plays." EVEN IF someone was deliberately trying to modify DOS a line at a time or by bit flips, there is no plausible path through intermediates that are of the class "software programs." EVEN IF someone was deliberately trying to build a soapbox racer, there is no plausible path through intermediates that are of the class "self-propelled vehicles."
I fear that I have been less than clear if that is the impression I have given about my skepticism. My objections are not based on the fact that there is an actor in these analogies, although that is a clear difference between them and evolution via natural selection. My objections are based on the fact that, as I have been saying all along, they are all goal-driven (with the possible exception of the software analogy, which I think could be made viable with some tweaking), with known outcomes.
Now, by goal-driven, I don't mean that there is someone working to make something - I don't particularly care about that for the moment. What I mean is that the universe of possible outcomes in all these cases is restricted to a single "end" product. The pile of parts can only become a soapbox racer - it can never be an airplane, or a bicycle, or a tractor, or a car, or a unicycle, or a skateboard. Just a soapbox racer - nothing else. And even if we allow for all forms of vehicles as possible outcomes, that is still too restrictive - it can never become a computer, or a wingback chair, or a fire hydrant, or a piano, or anything other than a soapbox racer.
But evolution via natural selection isn't like that. It doesn't work that way. Essentially, what you are doing is taking a particular path and saying "look how difficult it is to go from 'A' to 'Z' and all points in between." But evolution via natural selection doesn't work that way - it's not trying to go from "A" to "Z", it's just trying to go from "A" to somewhere. Anywhere will do.
Take a primitive single-celled organism - there is no force trying to make it into a tree or a worm or a lizard over a billion years' time. It just happens that way - everything you see around you is an accident, that could have just as easily been something else. There was no set path from blue-green algae to oak trees - it just looks that way.
That's what I'm trying to get across - unlike building a soapbox racer, there is no set path for evolution, where you start with a pile of parts and end up with a specific something. Any living thing at all is a valid outcome, whether it's like the things we recognize or not. No matter whether it's a tree or a slug or a mushroom or a cheetah or a human or something no person has ever set eyes upon - any living thing at all is a valid possible outcome.
Evolution via natural selection is not limited in the valid possible outcomes - that is my objection to all these analogies. Any analogy that starts off by assuming a particular final product is flawed by definition, because natural selection has no such fixed outcome. There is no requirement that it end up at a particular "Z".
That's the gist of my objections, and hopefully it is somewhat clearer now. I will have to think for a while to see if there is some other way that I can express it, as I have obviously not done a good job up to this point.