the hydrogenase that I work with is part of a mobile element; it's found in our organism in a gene island, but also straight up in the genome of another organism that was isolated 5000 kilometers away, in a totally different ecotype. both of these guys are found in the ocean, but none of the other members in the broad family that it comes from are oceanic: they come from terrestrial volcanic mats.
So obviously species-wise discrete or fuzzy taxa do not work for me; but even protein phylogenetics can be muddied by things like random gene fusions and convergent evolution. I'm not sure that some of the trees that I generate are actually taxonomic, but may be the result of selective pressure against a highly conserved scaffold.
Of course, they're still useful, even if they're bullshit... Because I don't care about phylogenetics, I care about function. If the tree that I make is an unfaithful representation of the historical record, no big deal, as long as it faitfully clusters function.
And even though we've been able to build a great story and a great tree structure, those of us who have studied deep biology know that the tree structure is really muddied by some inconvenient phenomena; for example, using some tiny subset of genes to compute phylogeny generates a very different result from using all genes, or combining all the gene data with all the morphogenic data. Understanding the underlying phenomena which help explain the oddballs that don't fit into the Dogma is almost always useful, because it helps us go back and refine the Dogma.
It's really more of a graph of life when you include horizontal gene trasnfer; whether that graph is very much non-tree like is still an open question.
The tree of life model is almost useless for understanding single celled organisms which vastly outnumber there multicellular counterparts. It also creates a lot of confusion where people assume the model matches reality instead of poorly mapping to reality. Consider species is a surprisingly vague concept where A and B may be compatible and A and C are compatible but B and C are not. The point is it's based on inaccurate assumptions, if you understand how and why the model breaks down you can extract a lot of value from F=MA or any other such approximation.