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?
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.