[allmendream]

Hardly necessary as I have taken graduate level courses in molecular evolution and obviously understand the subject far better than you.

To claim that cladograms are based upon and confirmed by morphological features alone is to misrepresent the state of the science.

But creationists must misrepresent science as a necessity, as we are seeing.

[count-your-change]

IF you actually took any such courses (and passed them) you should get your money back. You have offered no support for your claims of superior knowledge but I guess we can just take your word for it, right?

Cladistics is nothing more than subjective classification, subjective because it's based upon the classifier's assumptions. Assumptions of evolutionary lineage, assumptions of characteristics lost or gained, seeing membership in a class defined by the classifier.

That and nothing more when all the mumbo-jumbo is stripped away.