>>5080422
Isn't it pretty widely accetped at this point that sponges diverged before jellies/comb jellies since they lack proper tissue and radial symmetry?

>>5080497
All that means is that ctenophores are more derived than sponges, which doesn't tell you anything in terms of cladistics unless you assume those features are homologous to those of other derived metazoans (which is almost certainly not the case here).

It's hard to imagine any animal going from a more complex muscle-based internal structure to anything like a mesohyl.

clearly, porifers and ctenophores form their own monophyletic group