Granny you're awesome. But I gotta ask you to elaborate on this part (especially as I am going through some specific review of this point on another site):
... If the ToE were false, there would be no reason for this pattern to emerge, but it does. ...
You are essentially saying, "Ignoring the obvious cause for this pattern, there is no currently known reason for it."
To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.
My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.
The discovery institute evidently did a good job of expressing that "god did it" because I can't find the seems anywhere. Occam's razor is to me the only way I've been able to discern.
Essentially their argument is common design implies common designer, which is itself an explanation for nested hierarchy. There must be a foolproof rebuttal.
My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.