I think one is reading too much in what isn't there. This is how people invent religions, by seeing purpose when there wasn't any.
Unless you've proved there could be no purpose, then your analogy is argumentation by saying nothing logical.
This is handwaving noise.
You'd be better served to stick to facts and stop trying to obfuscate that you're just handwaving.
You're filibustering, which is not what I expect from a scientist.
Write fewer (useless) words and more facts.