Is there an objective subjectivity to be found as cladistics assumes (asserts, claims, defines)

Cladistics assumes, actually asserts, claims and defines, that there is a single "true tree of life" to be found. This assumption means that there among all erroneous trees is a single true tree, that is, a tree that is totally consistent, whereas all other trees are inconsistent. Is this assumption (assertion, claim, definition) rational?

In search for an answer to this question, we can first clarify that the set of all possible "trees" has to be internally contradictory, since all "trees" are different. Every "tree" in this set thus has to be contradictory to all other "trees" in the set. It means that the cladistic asumption that one of these "trees" is consistent is inconsistent, since it would mean that this "tree" is not contradictory to at least one other "tree" in the set, and thus not be a member of this set. This clarification thus allows us to conclude that the cladistic assumption (assertion, claim, definition) that there is a single "true tree of life" to be found is correct if this tree is not a member of the set "all possible trees", but wrong if it is a member of this set. The assumption (assertion, claim, definition) is thus wrong in every case.

The cladistic assumption is actually the subjective aspect of Russell's paradox, that is, assuming that classes are real instead of objects. This assumption also leads to Russell's paradox, with the difference that it believes that Russell's paradox is real.