It was, as you say, an analogy and a twist on the very common analogy of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck", implying one should assess the evidence and use common sense. The twist was "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably [insert whatever is the 'opposite' of a duck]". I chose 'camel' as it is totally different from a duck to imply a denial of what is plainly before you. While you and other posters say "appearances can be deceiving", this may be true in some instances but it is not a 'blanket' statement meaning that "all appearances are deceiving". I look at what appears to be an apple. On closer examination, it is an apple. I look at what appears to be a tree. On closer examination, it is a tree. It is only in a minority of instances that "appearances truly are deceptive" but not in every case, especially after closer examination of the evidence. Evos often, not always and not every Evo, go to great lengths, when fronted with such claims as "the appearance of design" or "the appearance of being young", to deny that which is obvious with the statement, "appearances can be deceiving" or similar as if it, in and of itself, disproves the claims of appearance. Again, while that statement may be true in some cases, I've yet to see an Evo give an adequate explanation for why something "that has the appearance of design" isn't actually designed without appealing to the a priori
of ToE - circular reasoning. The same, in the case of Uluru, what is the explanation for the grains of feldspar having "the appearance of being young" without them actually 'being young' without the a priori
of Uniformitarian 'slow and gradual. Again, circular reasoning.