[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.

[allmendream]

You are providing yet more evidence of the premise that creationists must misrepresent the actual science out of necessity.

I have detailed that what you thought you knew about how cladograms are constructed and confirmed based entirely upon morphological features was in error. What more do I need to show that that what you said was incorrect than that cladograms are ACTUALLY confirmed by DNA analysis?

To you science will always be “mumbo jumbo” because you don't understand it, and have shown no interest in actually gaining any understanding of it.

You would rather repeat a misrepresentation about how the actual science is done.

Creationists misrepresent science out of necessity.