A full genotypic analysis would take an absurdly long period of time and effort.
At the moment certainly, but as genotyping technology becomes more sophisticated and computing power increases then maybe not. There are already a number of published studies which have full genome comparisons amongst humans, chimps and dogs.
For a large tree of the vertebrates it might take many many years, but then it takes an awfully long time for all of the morphological data to be analysed as well the main advantage there is that a lot of the work has already been done in the past, since the technologies for studying morphology are not as arduous as those for genomic analysis.
If multiple ones were picked to determine the tree the SAME problem occurs.
The same problem will always occur if a limited set of data is used, that is why it is preferable to use multiple sets and determine a 'supertree' from the collected data.
All I meant by my tyrade was that genetics can help but it should not be used independently of morphology and embryology.
This is rarely the case in phylogenetic studies, except perhaps those focused on mitochondrial sequences. My view may be skewewd thoug as I work in developmental biology so very few of the papers I read don't touch on embryology.
evolutionists in areas point to the changing of systems and organisms by chance against all odds.
More like indeterminate odds, the calculations for the odds in these cases are often along the lines of marginalia scrawled on the back of a napkin after a particularly good night out*.
TTFN,
WK
*With a heartfelt nod towards that other, great, DNA.