The key phrase here is “a complete self-replicating automaton”. That’s common ancestry. It is the process of replication that produces the nested hierarchy.
If the automatons were separately created then there is no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy.
The sources are saying that the nested hierarchy is produced by replication and common ancestry.
Nothing on that page describes a nested hierarchy of features or sequence. For example, I can imbed the same “for loop” in many different places within a larger nested subroutine. This would violate a nested hierarchy. I do it all of the time when I am writing Python scripts. This also doesn’t relate to physical structures.
Vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. They do not fall into a tree. There is no reason why a creator would need to use a tree to design organisms.
Everything.
Vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Vehicles are separately created, and there is absolutely no reason why separate creations would need to fall into a nested hierarchy.
Until you supply a process whereby front loading can even work and observations of non-random mutations that can support it, it simply doesn’t work.
So why would this exclude a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features?
Then why do cold-blooded fish living in the same environment as octopusses have an inverted retina?
But that doesn’t channel evolution in any direction with respect to fitness or morphology. A CpG mutation is just as likely to be detrimental or neutral as it is beneficial. It is random.
But they aren’t similar traits once you look at the specifics. For example, the bird and bat wings are entirely different:
If we compared the sequences for those genes what do you think we would see? Would we see the exact pattern of sequence divergence that we would expect from evolution, or would we see sequence convergence which you claim is the product of design?