[GourmetDan]

"Every part of Darwin’s thesis is open to test. The clues – from fossils, genes or geography – differ in each case, but from all of them comes the conclusion that the whole of life is kin. That is no mere assertion, but a chain of deduction with every link complete. The biography of the AIDS virus, one of Nature’s newest and tiniest products, is almost complete and that of whales – the largest animals ever seen – is fragmentary, but they are cousins under the skin. The AIDS virus is change seen under the microscope, and the whale the same process viewed, in glimpses and over long ages, through a biological telescope. Evolution at the extremes of size is an apt prelude to the great drama that is Darwinism."

Fallacy of affirming the consequent on full display.

[OldNavyVet]

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.

(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore:

(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.

[OldNavyVet]

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.

(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore:

(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.