It made sense to him because he was a creationist. Of course the genomic pattern would also make sense with creation. That is why I'm not much impressed with it as evidence for macroevolution. It makes just as much sense for a common design/common designer.<quoted text>
However, the taxanomic pattern that made sense to him was a nested hierarchy and it is one that is extremely close to the evolutionary tree later discovered and the genomic tress discovered after that.
Linnaeus is testament to the fact that even WITHOUT a pre-existing "evolutionary bias", living species naturally fall into patterns consistent with evolution!
The only criticsm I receive for that is why would designer re-use design modules? I say why wouldn't he? That is the common practice. In fact there really is no argument or reason why God would need to have two genetic codes or design some chordata with one eye and some with two.