Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

[tas8831]

Hello all -

I came across this diagram that was presented on another forum, and it received an interesting interpretation from a creationist there. Can a creationist tell us what they think this diagram indicates, in terms of who is related to who and how?

thanks!

 

[tas8831]

Any creationist? You guys talk about phylogenetic trees all the time, here is your chance to show us what you actually know about them.

 

[pitabread]

I'm always amazed when creationists can't read a phylogenetic tree given how patently simple they are. I mean, where is the difficulty, I don't get it?

 

[pshun2404]

Hello all -

I came across this diagram that was presented on another forum, and it received an interesting interpretation from a creationist there. Can a creationist tell us what they think this diagram indicates, in terms of who is related to who and how?

thanks!

Sure! To being with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one).

It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees. It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.

In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.

Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks (What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! But surely this clade is....

As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one) though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.

So this is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage. But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm?

 

[pshun2404]

I actually think the Wiki article puts it together well when it says “The cladistic method interprets each character state transformation implied by the distribution of shared character states among taxa (or other terminals) as a potential piece of evidence for grouping. The outcome of a cladistic analysis is a cladogram – a tree-shaped diagram (dendrogram) that is interpreted to represent the best hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships.”

So let’s recap the subjunctive mood in this definition of the methodology

a) Interprets...

b) transformation implied...

c) a POTENTIAL piece...

d) a diagram...INTERPRETED to represent...

e) hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships

See? Nothing factual, or actually knowable. A potential piece of evidence is not an actual piece (but may turn out to be). And this diagram (something man makes) is INTERPRETED TO REPRESENT the HYPOTHESIS of phylogenetic relationships (hence they are hypothetical, a point I made earlier).

Now considering any 1st year Biology student can make a cladogram (in fact they teach you how) and that there even exists an online Cladogram Maker we KNOW what you put in is what you get out and HOW YOU interpret the result is HYPOTHESIS BASED. So if I were you I would not put too much stock in these devices. I mean I could build a clade starting with the fact that a redwood tree, a kidney bean, and a possum all have 22 Chromosomes and then interpret this to represent a hypothesis that there is a lineal (family-ish) relationship one to the other (the redwood being a common ancestor to both the kidney bean and the possum). But really?

“Every cladogram is based on a particular dataset analyzed with a particular method.”

“Different datasets and different methods, not to mention violations of the mentioned assumptions, often result in different cladograms.” (a point I made earlier).

“cladograms provide competing accounts of real events, at most one of them is correct.” Or maybe all are incorrect, but all cannot be correct (the one you picked is NOT...see my previous post about the African Gorilla teeth). Could be? Might be? Not IS! Therefore it is a belief not an established fact. The evidence CAN BE interpreted to represent simple similarity in design (a claim I do not make) in a variety of creatures OR just a normal part of their individual and totally unique UNRELATED DNA (related only in that it is DNA) which is how I now see it ( and no, original thought rarely has an onslaught of previous conclusions from others schooled in the alternate perspectives).

Now I am ready for another onslaught of subtle insults so take your best shot, I must go...but I will be back.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure! To being with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

False. These diagrams are the result of mapping out data. The structure isn't super-imposed on it. It is just the result of the mapping out of data.

It is a man-made chart

Here's one that's generated automatically based on completely sequenced genomes, by a rather blind DNA matching algoritm:

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one).

False.

It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees.

Show us a tree that diverges from the one in the OP.

It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.

Actually, it's simply the result of taking a DNA sequence and then counting matches with other DNA from other species and mapping those out on a chart.

Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks

Wait, so we gather addtional data, found a mistake and corrected for it?

THE HORROR!

(What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! But surely this clade is....

So what exactly was the error and how exactly did it make "cards come falling down"?

As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one) though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts.

Why are you talking about "atheists"? You are not a aware that the majority of christians actually has no issues with mainstream biology?

Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.

And DNA. Don't forget DNA.

So this is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage. But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm?

Charts aren't made by artists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I actually think the Wiki article puts it together well when it says “The cladistic method interprets each character state transformation implied by the distribution of shared character states among taxa (or other terminals) as a potential piece of evidence for grouping. The outcome of a cladistic analysis is a cladogram – a tree-shaped diagram (dendrogram) that is interpreted to represent the best hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships.”

So let’s recap the subjunctive mood in this definition of the methodology

a) Interprets...

b) transformation implied...

c) a POTENTIAL piece...

d) a diagram...INTERPRETED to represent...

e) hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships

See? Nothing factual, or actually knowable. A potential piece of evidence is not an actual piece (but may turn out to be). And this diagram (something man makes) is INTERPRETED TO REPRESENT the HYPOTHESIS of phylogenetic relationships (hence they are hypothetical, a point I made earlier).

Now considering any 1st year Biology student can make a cladogram (in fact they teach you how) and that there even exists an online Cladogram Maker we KNOW what you put in is what you get out and HOW YOU interpret the result is HYPOTHESIS BASED. So if I were you I would not put too much stock in these devices. I mean I could build a clade starting with the fact that a redwood tree, a kidney bean, and a possum all have 22 Chromosomes and then interpret this to represent a hypothesis that there is a lineal (family-ish) relationship one to the other (the redwood being a common ancestor to both the kidney bean and the possum). But really?

“Every cladogram is based on a particular dataset analyzed with a particular method.”

“Different datasets and different methods, not to mention violations of the mentioned assumptions, often result in different cladograms.” (a point I made earlier).

“cladograms provide competing accounts of real events, at most one of them is correct.” Or maybe all are incorrect, but all cannot be correct (the one you picked is NOT...see my previous post about the African Gorilla teeth). Could be? Might be? Not IS! Therefore it is a belief not an established fact. The evidence CAN BE interpreted to represent simple similarity in design (a claim I do not make) in a variety of creatures OR just a normal part of their individual and totally unique UNRELATED DNA (related only in that it is DNA) which is how I now see it ( and no original thought rarely has an onslaught of previous conclusions from others schooled in the alternate perspectives).

Now I am ready for another onslaught of subtle insults so take your best shot, I must go...but I will be back.

It's called intellectual honesty.

Something scientists excel at while creationists avoid it like the plague.

 

[tas8831]

Hilarious - I should have known that we would get unnecessarily verbose, quote-laden dodging from the local coccyx expert.

You see - I chose that cladogram for a reason:

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"​

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hilarious - I should have known that we would get unnecessarily verbose, quote-laden dodging from the local coccyx expert.

You see - I chose that cladogram for a reason:

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"​

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I'll bet that when he reads this post of yours, he'll wonder what your point is...

 

[tas8831]

Sure! To being with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

Pathetic.

 

[pshun2404]

I'll bet that when he reads this post of yours, he'll wonder what your point is...

Sorry DH I get his non-point. All that I said is correct. See next...the factual content will incite you to even more subtle insults (which I await gladly). The final two paragraphs, being only my opinion (based on repeated observation), can be accepted as constructive criticism, or emotionally reacted to in denial and insult...I'll watch and see which one you are.

 

[pshun2404]

Systems of formally classifying different creatures (or anything else) have been around since before Darwin. Different systems classify according to different characteristics that appear to be similar or different. These compilations are tools meant to group like or shared things which are then interpreted according to one’s paradigm.

Clades are being selected as the method of choice in our time because it can easily employ the evolutionary perspective in interpretation. Cladistics is used best as a tool for evolutionists because by these one can predict alleged family relationships based on these similar characteristics, but the family part (lineal relations one from the other) is the “how” of what is interpreted. In truth it is hypothesized (honest scientists have long admitted this). However it is most useful when we are looking at groups of particular biological compounds or hosts of genes.

It is used most applicably in visualizing what we believe are a character's change within a selected group, over time.

But as an evolutionary tool it really only predicts the possible direction of such changes or differences ( a very useful possibility to evolutionists). However in many cases cladistics is showing that the evolutionists were wr-wr-wrong (but never admitted). For one example look at the well -known orb-weaving spiders. Not only was it logically assumed (according to their logic) that these evolved from the less orderly cob-web forming spiders (with a few rare sparse fossil impressions appearing to bear this out) BUT it was

a) Believed to be an obvious truth

b) Defended as evidence of evolution, and

c) Taught to generations of students in subtle passing

People who opposed this assumption would not do well in a discussion against the consensus. But after some cladists indicated the opposite may be true (hence “evolutionists” were Wr-wr-wrong...not the idea of evolution or science, but rather “evolutionists” interpretations of the data) it has now been demonstrated the opposite is more likely what really happened, and the more disorderly varieties grew out of the more primitive yet more orderly varieties. This same reversal tendency by some cladists has been taking place in other areas as well.

The often conclusionary output of any cladogram CAN BE interpreted differently because it is really hypothetical. Phylogenetic analysis is based on a HYPOTHESIS of lineage (hence familial type relationship).

Obviously genes can and do change but difference in genes between different creatures does not necessitate lineage only differences. Yes many genes are similar but similarity likewise does not necessitate lineage only similarity in the genetic material or arrangement necessary to produce these different forms (and some differences in function) which just as likely are simply unique to each possibly totally unrelated (lineally) creature. Either option is equally plausible (because interpretation is hypothesis based).

Using the same legos I can make a whole host of houses, planes, characters, and so on. I can then regroup them according to like combinations of colors or size or shapes. I can note those combinations that have doors or entrance points and those that do not. The base pair sequences are simply the biochemical building blocks of living organisms (with far more complexity than anything a man can make, because though subject to laws and principles governing the behavior and reactions of chemicals, they are also empowered by life).

A cladogram shows us HYPOTHESIZD clades (which is why some differ and there are so many), not actual relationships (in terms of lineage), but they are nonetheless USEFUL TOOLS just as classification of character types or symptoms in psychology, or any other system for classification, that WE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN to help us group things so as to discern similarities and differences.

For another example (than the orb-web spiders) I believe In Origin of Birds: The Final Solution? (American Zoologist: Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 504-512), Peter Dodson’s point is accurate and it applies to how we interpret various clades:

“... the word dinosaur was not previously problematic - it was universally understood. Within cladistics it has now been redefined to include birds [...] and then a new and cumbersome phrase, non-avian dinosaur, has been substituted. This is not progress; this is semantic obfuscation, not enlightened communication. “

He is so right. As typically happens among those convinced that the theoretical is actually the factual (among evolutionists), when the actual facts appear to upset the proverbial applecart, most evolutionists never (very rarely one or two are more honest) say we were wr-wr-wrong! Instead they simply infuse or impose new, unknown, never imagined, meaning into the commonly understood terms to make it appear they are still correct!

This obfuscation technique has sadly become a norm among “evolutionists” (again NOT the idea of evolution or Science). The victims of this propaganda technique are like blind sheep not even aware how inappropriate this actually is. They are so use to it, they just fall in goosestep (and why not they want to pass their courses, get the grant money, get published, fit in to the group, etc.)

Now all readers should watch carefully who focuses their attention on the final two paragraphs and does not actually deal with the facts and reasoning of the post...because this reveals who are such victims of this technique.

 

[tas8831]

Systems of formally classifying different creatures (or anything else) have been around since before Darwin. Different systems classify according to different characteristics that appear to be similar or different. These compilations are tools meant to group like or shared things which are then interpreted according to one’s paradigm.

Clades are being selected as the method of choice in our time because it can easily employ the evolutionary perspective in interpretation. Cladistics is used best as a tool for evolutionists because by these one can predict alleged family relationships based on these similar characteristics, but the family part (lineal relations one from the other) is the “how” of what is interpreted. In truth it is hypothesized (honest scientists have long admitted this). However it is most useful when we are looking at groups of particular biological compounds or hosts of genes.

It is used most applicably in visualizing what we believe are a character's change within a selected group, over time.

But as an evolutionary tool it really only predicts the possible direction of such changes or differences ( a very useful possibility to evolutionists). However in many cases cladistics is showing that the evolutionists were wr-wr-wrong (but never admitted). For one example look at the well -known orb-weaving spiders. Not only was it logically assumed (according to their logic) that these evolved from the less orderly cob-web forming spiders (with a few rare sparse fossil impressions appearing to bear this out) BUT it was

a) Believed to be an obvious truth

b) Defended as evidence of evolution, and

c) Taught to generations of students in subtle passing

People who opposed this assumption would not do well in a discussion against the consensus. But after some cladists indicated the opposite may be true (hence “evolutionists” were Wr-wr-wrong...not the idea of evolution or science, but rather “evolutionists” interpretations of the data) it has now been demonstrated the opposite is more likely what really happened, and the more disorderly varieties grew out of the more primitive yet more orderly varieties. This same reversal tendency by some cladists has been taking place in other areas as well.

The often conclusionary output of any cladogram CAN BE interpreted differently because it is really hypothetical. Phylogenetic analysis is based on a HYPOTHESIS of lineage (hence familial type relationship).

Obviously genes can and do change but difference in genes between different creatures does not necessitate lineage only differences. Yes many genes are similar but similarity likewise does not necessitate lineage only similarity in the genetic material or arrangement necessary to produce these different forms (and some differences in function) which just as likely are simply unique to each possibly totally unrelated (lineally) creature. Either option is equally plausible (because interpretation is hypothesis based).

Using the same legos I can make a whole host of houses, planes, characters, and so on. I can then regroup them according to like combinations of colors or size or shapes. I can note those combinations that have doors or entrance points and those that do not. The base pair sequences are simply the biochemical building blocks of living organisms (with far more complexity than anything a man can make, because though subject to laws and principles governing the behavior and reactions of chemicals, they are also empowered by life).

A cladogram shows us HYPOTHESIZD clades (which is why some differ and there are so many), not actual relationships (in terms of lineage), but they are nonetheless USEFUL TOOLS just as classification of character types or symptoms in psychology, or any other system for classification, that WE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN to help us group things so as to discern similarities and differences.

For another example (than the orb-web spiders) I believe In Origin of Birds: The Final Solution? (American Zoologist: Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 504-512), Peter Dodson’s point is accurate and it applies to how we interpret various clades:

“... the word dinosaur was not previously problematic - it was universally understood. Within cladistics it has now been redefined to include birds [...] and then a new and cumbersome phrase, non-avian dinosaur, has been substituted. This is not progress; this is semantic obfuscation, not enlightened communication. “

He is so right. As typically happens among those convinced that the theoretical is actually the factual (among evolutionists), when the actual facts appear to upset the proverbial applecart, most evolutionists never (very rarely one or two are more honest) say we were wr-wr-wrong! Instead they simply infuse or impose new, unknown, never imagined, meaning into the commonly understood terms to make it appear they are still correct!

This obfuscation technique has sadly become a norm among “evolutionists” (again NOT the idea of evolution or Science). The victims of this propaganda technique are like blind sheep not even aware how inappropriate this actually is. They are so use to it, they just fall in goosestep (and why not they want to pass their courses, get the grant money, get published, fit in to the group, etc.)

Now all readers should watch carefully who focuses their attention on the final two paragraphs and does not actually deal with the facts and reasoning of the post...because this reveals who are such victims of this technique.

All of this verbiage to hide the fact that you cannot interpret cladograms.

Let me guess - 'insults'?

Well, what is it when a person presents himself as being able to do something when he then demonstrates he cannot? This obfuscation technique has sadly become a norm among “creationists”.

 

[pshun2404]

Before one can do something (like apply a paradigm based interpretation) one SHOULD accurately understand and admit (to their self) what it is in reality (now go back and re-read my posts). Plus your subtle ad hominem about how I claimed something I cannot do is typical from you.

Also typical from you is that you open a thread and then contribute nothing meaningful after (unlike others like Jimmy D., PsychoSarah, and so on) .

You insult, mischaracterize, misrepresent what people say (or are unable to read what they say with comprehension), you give no real demonstrable support for your belief, you never deal with the logic or reasoning of counter-arguments, and oh yes let us not forget that you ALWAYS try desperately to drag the thread into arguments about off topic subjects.

Clades and cladograms are exactly what I described them to be. Recognizing that would start you on a journey into actual, objective, critical thinking, as opposed to regurgitation of the pre-programmed presuppositions.

 

[pshun2404]

Embarrassed? Should be. Let me help so you know I am not just making this stuff up! Understanding Evolution reports in "Reconstructing trees: Cladistics"

Cladistics is a method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms — in other words, a method of reconstructing evolutionary trees. The basis of a cladistic analysis is data on the characters, or traits, of the organisms in which we are interested. These characters could be anatomical and physiological characteristics, behaviors, or genetic sequences.

(these hypothesized relationships are based first on selected data the cladist is interested in)

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.

(hence the GIGO principle...and new data as would also a new analysis changes the clade and could be interpreted to support a different or negating hypothesis, The current conclusionary interpretation is based on three ASSUMPTIONS..as already indicated)

(Assumptions There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

(or so the experts say...er...ah....ASSUMPTIONS)

1. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The assumption that characteristics of organisms change over time is the most important one in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. We call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic

(no one denies this...they simply HYPOTHESIZE other causes and how far this goes...example: I see only evidence here of invertebrae becoming other varieties of invertebrae not vertebrae, fish becoming other varieties of fish not amphibians and so on)

2. Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
This assumption is supported by many lines of evidence and essentially means that all life on Earth today is related and shares a common ancestor. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and hypothesize a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information.

(this is an essential ASSUMPTION if one is to accept evolutionist concepts of phylogeny which is also hypothesized)

3. There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.
This assumption suggests that when a lineage splits, it divides into exactly two groups. There are some situations that violate this assumption. For example, many biologists accept the idea that multiple new lineages have arisen from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event (as in the case of the cichlid fish described previously). The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups, which occurs at least occasionally in some groups (like plants). While such exceptions may exist, for many groups they are relatively rare and so this assumption often holds true.

(the one interprets to support divergence the other convergence but neither supports phylogeny outside of or across assumed borders other than the production of variety)

So according to the consensus of the experts represented these are assumption as I have been trying to convey. Start by accepting this TRUTH on a deeper journey to true objectivity, and then we can talk further on this interesting subject.

 

[pitabread]

Hilarious - I should have known that we would get unnecessarily verbose, quote-laden dodging from the local coccyx expert.

You see - I chose that cladogram for a reason:

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"​

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Whoops!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hilarious - I should have known that we would get unnecessarily verbose, quote-laden dodging from the local coccyx expert.

You see - I chose that cladogram for a reason:

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"​

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I'm perfectly convinced he still has no idea what he said wrong - a short story or two later & everything....

 

[pshun2404]

I'm perfectly convinced he still has no idea what he said wrong - a short story or two later & everything....

Yet it all came from sources generally supportive of your camp...oh well...I guess they are wrong and you are correct. Are you sure Understanding Evolution got it wrong? Your camp usually quotes it as some sort of authoritative resource. No? You know better than this consensus view? Wow! Please let me read some of your papers.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yet it all came from sources generally supportive of your camp...oh well...I guess they are wrong and you are correct. Are you sure Understanding Evolution got it wrong? Your camp usually quotes it as some sort of authoritative resource. No? You know better than this consensus view? Wow! Please let me read some of your papers.

No, no, they have it right regarding cladistics, as do you in the definitional sense - this isn't the problem with your statement though. This is why everyone knows you are wholly ignorant of the topic you're trying to critique.

 

[pshun2404]

No, no, they have it right regarding cladistics, as do you in the definitional sense - this isn't the problem with your statement though. This is why everyone knows you are wholly ignorant of the topic you're trying to critique.

Interesting conclusion. So Tas asked about "this cladogram" and I gave may opinion of it, along with a well supported explanation of why I have reached that opinion. And this makes me wholly ignorant? The clade is in error (simple), while others may or may not be more accurate...simple.

Certain technigues for devising cladograms are common enough to be a "method" taught. Interpretation is hypothesis based (not just my wholly ignorant opinion) which require certain assumptions to be veritable (not just my wholly ignorant opinion). Perhaps you are arguing with the conclusions of the contributors referred to in post #5?