We are not talking about why the genes are merely similar. We are talking about why they are similar in such a way that a phylogenetic algorithm would infer highly similar trees from independent sets of data.
So you clearly didn’t understand this. We are trying to determine why it is that different sources of comparative biological data (morphology, gene or protein sequences) consistently produces trees with a statistically significant degree of congruence. This is not actually explained by the statement “I think its logical to cnclude that a reptile insulin should be more similar to other reptile insulins then to say a mammal one”.
Second, merely listing trees that have incongruences does not suffice to cast any doubt on the existence of a common topology for reasons already explained previously.
Third, your ability to make a cartoon tree and place objects haphazardly at the leaves has absolutely nothing to do with how phylogenetic trees are actually made and does not contitute evidence that you can consistently find that shared characteristics of designed objects can be objectively sorted into a nesting hierarchical arrangement, and that different characteristics significantly agree on a common topology. Do you even understand what I just wrote means?