stu - looking up "autapomorthy " , it seems to me that assigning something which has a feature that is unique makes it difficult to place in an exact clade. would the platypus be an example of this?.
[I imagine that had it become extinct, it might be heralded as transitional!]
I am having difficulty understanding what your point is. whilst I appreciate organisms may be grouped together due to variation by natural selection, there is little ,if any evidence that any grouping beyond those limits is legitimate , since your common descent is equally, if not better explained by a common design .
when I say information, I am referring to the code of dna "letters" that continually "write" the same "blueprint". there is no evidence being offered that anything beyond that is being copied that could lead to macro evolution.

I am curious as to whether you think anything is better than something else. for example , the "simplest" single cell ,though having some complexity is much lower than the higher taxa.
do you see humanity as not having more value than lower forms, or do you see a line of demarcation somewhere- mammals perhaps?.

No, really, I'm curious: were you pissed out of your head or on drugs when you typed this utter bollocks?