Seeing how birds and mammals share common ancestors from long ago, the fact that one can find bones and muscles on both does not help your argument like you think it does. It simply reinforces the nested hierarchies of common descent.
Also, I’ve noticed that you mistake aspects of human language for taxonomic boundaries. Yes, in English we use the same word, wing, for both the bat structure and the bird structure but that does NOT at all mean that they are the same structures. You’ve already been shown through diagrams that they differ enormously. Yes, they share some characteristics in terms of shape and movement—but only because they exist in the same universe where the earth’s atmosphere requires that flying creatures take advantage of the laws of physics in ways which work.
I appreciate your efforts to describe your position but does it not at all strike you as an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect when you insist that all of the world’s university biology departments have botched the nested hierarchy argument but you’ve somehow got it right? I am not a biologist but it is clear to me from reading this thread that nested hierarchies are not what you think they are. Shared features is NOT what constitutes a nested hierarchy. It is the patterns which matter. (The fact that you think automobiles exhibit the similar nested hierarchies to living things is very frustrating to most readers of this thread.)
Have you considered the idea that a Common Designer chose to design nested hierarchies by employing what has become known as Common Descent?