Problem was not the link, I saw the part you intended, problem is that the source (TalkOrigins) is not telling the truth. As I have said, the different evolutionary trees by different evolutionists have vast differences. Below is an example of how big they are just in regards to the fairly small amount of items (and widely divergent ones at that!) in the Cambrian phyla:
Alternative Views of Metazoan Pylogeny (from Wllace Arthur, "Animapl Body Plans" page 58)
| Source | Monophiletic? | Offshoots? | Bilateria? | Protostomes & deuterosotomes | Arthopoda | Other Clusters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nursall | N | N/A | N | N | Y | M |
| Barnes | N | Y | Y | D | N | L |
| Margulis & Schwartz | Y | Y | Y | D | Y | MA |
| Willmer | N | Y | N | D | N | L |
| Barnes | Y | Y | Y | P + D | Y | M |
| Schram | Y | Y | Y | D | Y | MA |
| Backeljau | Y | Y | Y | D | Y | MA |
| Conway Morris | Y | Y | Y | P + D | Y | A |
| Raff | Y | Y | Y | P + D | Y | LM |
| Nielsen | Y | Y* | Y | P + D | Y | MA |
Anyway, even in that limited area--cutting the tree off pretty far down---there's considerable convergence of opinion. That's not bad considering that the convergences tend to get bigger as you zoom out, smaller as you zoom in. Why? Signal/noise ratio. The whole, non-truncated tree of life would show rather more agreement.
What you seem to be linking is a summary of trees drawn by individuals by methods unspecified. It does not refute the source I linked at all, which discusses the convergence of trees developed by different methods.
Even if I recognize some of the names in your chart--OK, one name--it's much more interesting to know how the trees were developed rather than by whom, wouldn't you say? Also, your chart is undated, which is something I've learned can be rather treacherous in this area of study.