Well, if it looks extremely primitive and silly then it could not possibly be accurate could it?
If you have a better method if diagramming a nested hierarchy I suggest you present it here for all to see.
Why does the answer from so many who are married to evolution, when questioned, have to be "well where's your better idea?" Is it not possible for holes to be poked in a theory without offering an alternative? Perhaps by first accepting that there are holes in a theory, one can then be open to looking at new possibilities.
I think for many people the so-called "tree of life" diagrams have serious apparent limitations.
One reason is the ususal failure to show the species (ususally fossil) that demonstrate the transitions. I've seen it recently in trying to show the development of seed plants for my grandkids, and in designing a popular exhibit on reptiles and amphibians. You just don't see Lumpophyus earlius or Squiffodontus confusus on these "trees."
Another is the problem of showing chronospecies (the dinosaurs "turned into" birds deal).
And another is the difficulty in doing the 3-D visualizing needed for both cladograms and "trees."
Of course this presupposes honest searchers as opposed to argumentative, uneducated twits.