Such fallacious reasoning is ubiquitous in evolutionary thought. It is everywhere.
There has been an ongoing discussion between Dr. Vincent Torley, a philosopher, and myself on the subject of pseudogenes, synteny, and common descent.
Consider this diagram — or “tanglegram” — representing the parallel phylogenies yielded by pocket gophers and their lice parasites.
If intelligent design is dead, why do critics have to keep killing it?
Has Darwin successfully replaced Marx and Freud, and, of course, the Bible, as a narrative for Western civilization? David Brooks, House Conservative at the New York Times and often a writer of real insight, apparently thinks so. (He is another example of conservatives, like George Will and Charles Krauthammer, who do not want to be bothered to actually read the works of serious Darwin critics, let alone talk with them.) Richard Kirk replies effectively to Brooks in the new American Spectator.