As others have stated, water in trees gets up thanks to two processes. The first is indeed capillary action. The tubes carrying the water are rather thin, and it clings to the sides of it. But this is a rather small part of the total energy carrying the water. The main mechanism is a negative pressure inside the vascular system of the tree. Basically, tree leaves sweat water all the time (more or less depending on temperature). The water leaving the tree kind of sucks up the water following inside the vessels (this is a simplification to not go into the physics behind). In some larger trees, the negative pressure inside the vascular system can be exceptionally strong, requiring exceptional strength of the tree’s components.

They are its legs, however they are heavily modified legs made for strongly grappling prey

The diapsid part is very likely indeed, as fossil skulls of early stem turtles do show some temporal openings ( https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024746 ) The point is more where do they nest within Diapsida, more closely to the Lepidosauromorpha, or to the Archosauromorpha, and where precisely if within one of those clades. The point is that can’t quite be proven using only extant species, whether by DNA or morphological evidence. And concerning ML, the methodology is often criticised, not because it’s bad, but because it’s opaque and thus it is difficult to justify and understand as a process

In phylogeny, genomic is just another tool. The point is that turtles are os course animals, but they do branch off of different reptile groups if you look at morphological evidence (which includes fossil data) or at molecular (genetic) evidence (which only includes extant species). This is not something frequent, as usually molecular evidence tends to strengthen previous morphologically established evolutionary relationships. And even though molecularists are more numerous today, their methods are neither better or worse than anatomy.

Phylogeny is not as straightforward as some people make it seem, and especially molecular phylogeny tends to rely on abstract concepts that can’t always be backed up by biological evidence (I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s very often very good, juste that a lot of people doing it do not understand the way it works, and thus can’t examine the process critically).

And so turtles’ origin are still very much an active debate!

I feel inappropriate near all the very universal questions here, but as a paleontologist specialised in some reptilian groups, the question would probably be “where the fuck do turtles come from?!” The thing is that fossil evidence points to different answers when compared to genetic evidence, and thez separated long enough from other extant groups that we keep on having new “definitive” answers every year

Not sure if it qualifies as nihilistic, but Upgrade (2018) definetely has a very unhappy ending

Not too much techy, paleontologist here