The models agree on the population size during that time period. Obviously the “when” is exactly what is in dispute.
If universal common ancestry is true, morphology is unreliable. If structural appearance is unreliable, why would we think that molecular appearance is reliable without direct observation of genealogical relationships? Nested hierarchies can obviously be deceiving. I’ve just always thought we should find consistencies in morphology and molecular trees for this to be a compelling argument. If convergent evolution can be appealed to whenever needed, then nested hierarchy has no power as a proof. I don’t know…just thought there must be something more to nested hierarchy for it to be such solid proof of universal common ancestry.
Funny I came across this on another was reading through the other thread - this seems to be a “proof” for common ancestry that really isn’t a good one.
I haven’t thought about it that much. I suppose I posted because I was in the mood for a challenge to think about. 
Can you give me an example of what you’re talking about?
Which theory predicted this? How does a nested hierarchy explain it? Octopus brain and human brain share the same 'jumping genes'