No it doesn’t, and no it hasn’t. There is no reason why common design/archetype need result in the same structures being used for replication, heritability, catalysis and metabolism in all life forms, particularly those from different archetypes.
A nested hierarchy of species
Does not count because it assumes that common descent is the [only] process that can create nested hierarchies within species.
No it doesn’t. It says that branching evolutionary processes are the only known processes that do.
Independent determination of the historical phylogeny
This is the same as I said above.
No it isn’t.
Intermediate and transitional forms
Unless the species are transitioning into a completely different species (i.e. transmutation), this can’t be considered a prediction that supports common descent. Only the Reptile-birds and Reptile mammals series would be true examples of transmutation, but they have been shown to be separate:
Sinonyx and whales are also completely different species, based on the criteria you provided. Anyway, you’re wrong, and the rest of what you say is nonsensical.
Chronology of common ancestors
This is the same as I said above
No it isn’t.
Given that
- You have a history of citing sources you haven’t read;
- Everything you’ve quoted is from the section headings of part 1;
- Your comments have little or no relevance to the contents of part 1;
- You haven’t commented on parts 2,3,4 or 5 at all;
I conclude that
- you’ve only looked at the section headings of part 1
- you haven’t bothered to read the rest of part 1
- you haven’t even realised the other parts exist let alone read them
- the responses I gave above, as brief as they were, were still far more than you deserve.