Thought experiment: supercomputers as a possible product of evolution

Hi
The following is only preliminary speculation. I would love to hear whether you (or readers) believe there is a flaw in the underlying assumptions.
Is it correct to say that evolution is categorically prohibited from producing supercomputers? Just as it produced elephants, eucalyptus trees, and humans.
If true – why?
The possible answer of an evolutionary biologist – I’m wrong. In principle, it is possible that one day supercomputers will develop in nature.
His second possible answer – evolution can create supercomputers (and has already done so): it created humans and they created supercomputers. This is how evolution works – indirectly.
My answer: Not a reasonable answer because it seems like a clever idea to me. A supercomputer is a very primitive entity compared to living creatures, and it seems to me that evolution should have the ability to create it on its own, even without humans.
Third objection: Evolution also doesn’t produce stars, rocks, and volcanoes, so why would it produce computers?
My answer: Supercomputers are an imitation (albeit a very pale one) of living beings, unlike the inanimate objects above. It would be expected that evolutionary processes would at least have the potential to create this.
 
The basic premise behind it: Naturalism is not enough to explain evolution: evolution is too “smart” and too “dumb” at the same time to create supercomputers on its own.
The difference from the watchmaker’s argument: Paley uses an analogy or metaphor only (the clock). He does not see an intrinsic conceptual connection between the image of the clock and his philosophical-theological argument. My argument does see such a connection: the existence of such a sophisticated “clock” (a supercomputer), which despite its great sophistication is nowhere near the level of a living creature, indicates meta-evolutionary (metaphysical?) forces. These forces constitute the law that operates the creators of the clocks (man).