[allmendream]

You represented that as being what cladograms are based upon. That is incorrect.

But we wouldn't expect you to have any idea of the actual science because creationists sources misrepresent the actual science out of necessity. Your doing it when you suggest that those features are what cladograms are based upon, even if your using a legitimate source, you are misrepresenting the context that “The formation of the group is based upon shared evolutionary traits and descent is shown by the grouping?”

No, that is absolutely incorrect. Formation of the group is based upon a shared evolutionary trait and CONFIRMED by DNA analysis.

[count-your-change]

The shared traits are ASSUMED to arise from an evolutionary relationship and often times no, repeat NO, DNA is available.
Cladograms can be constructed using such features as hair or the lack of it, etc. and such are again ASSUMED to have been derived so it is just as I said.
I misrepresent nothing at all, but if it is simply too difficult for you to understand I'll try to use smaller words or you can use the google button.

Shall I break it down to the “See the dog run, see the dog jump” level for you?