Can cladistics be more discarded than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?

The German entomologist Willi Hennig conflated entities (ie, entity) with classes (ie, class) and did thereby enter consistent inconsistency. The conflation also conflates infinite classes (ie, class) with finite classes (ie, category), and thereby also entities (ie, entity) with finite classes (ie, category), and thus also singularities (ie, single) with groups (ie, group), It thus conflates everything that possibly can be conflated, leaving us with the paradoxical class (category?, entity?) that originally erroneously was called "monophyletic group", but which today is called clade.

This conflation led biological systematics into an irrational and insensible chase for "the True Clade", called "the True Tree of Life", which actually is a paradox called Russell's paradox. The conflation made some biological systematists (notably Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson) believe that this paradox actually can be found, instead of understanding that it is a paradox (although the paradox had been revealed logically about 50 years before Hennig's conceptual conflation).

Unfortunately, this conflation still holds the ideas of biological systematists in a firm grip. The notion of clades, which was abandonded by the introduction of the consistent Linnean systematics, does once again rule, as it did before the introduction of Linnean systematics. The paradoxically contradictory idea of a fusion of time and space is obviously difficult to get rid of, although it has been shown to be paradoxically contradictory by Bertrand Russell and also contradicts (ie, is falsified by) the fairly recently discovered fact that time is relative to space. This toughness of this insensible and irrational idea makes one wonder what it takes to discard it. Can it be more than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?