[count-your-change]

You've shown nothing at all. You've made assertions without the smallest amount of support, you've told me you know more than I do because you've supposedly taken some courses, again without support, you've dismissed the source I cited as “Creationist” though she is anything but and certainly more qualified than you to speak on the subject of cladograms, and now you ask:

” What more do I need to show that that what you said was incorrect than that cladograms are ACTUALLY confirmed by DNA analysis?”

How about something besides just your unsupported “I know more than you” assertions?

[allmendream]

So you deny that cladograms are confirmed by DNA analysis?

You need me to actually show you a modern study on how cladograms are constructed using DNA analysis to contradict your ignorant assertion that they are both constructed and confirmed using only morphological features?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15930154?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=3

One study of MANY THOUSANDS, that show that cladograms are NOT constructed and confirmed based entirely upon morphological features. They are constructed based upon a shared derived morphological feature, and CONFIRMED by DNA analysis.

But you have shown that you know nothing about the subject, and can only misrepresent the actual state of the science.

Creationists must misrepresent science out of necessity.