Richard Dawkins Gets the Science Wrong . . . Again

Richard Dawkins continues to claim that the evidence shows a perfect tree of life-- a “perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.”  But this is clearly not the case, as the post at that link shows, as well as this article from the New Scientist.  Why does he continue to assert this?  Can he really be that out of touch with current science?  Or does he just actively avoid reading the studies that do not confirm his bias?  Or is he being dishonest?  I think he really believes it is true, or he would not argue that it is the best evidence for evolution.