[ithkuil]

Interesting behavior of creationists: science is good when they say something close to their existing believes.

I'm not sure we share a common definition of what science means. It's more about understanding the reality via observation rather than seeking to confirm the "truth" by possibly filtering observation that would point away from it.

[ryanbrunner]

He didn't mention whether he was a Creationist or not. A large number of Christians (Catholics, for a start), don't have any real significant beefs with evolution - they think of it as a "God works in mysterious ways" type deal.

[ithkuil]

I don't know about his beliefs nor I want to question them. That's why I tried to be as much impersonal as I could in my reply, while linking to what he said, because it's a relevant context.

It very common to have holders of any belief system (whether theological nature or more mundane stuff like ecology, organic food etc) to cheer when some scientific proof supporting their views is presented to the public, and almost always with very little doubt over either the validity of such proof, or the actual meaning of the find.

Let's see this particular example. The existence of a common ancestor means that we went through a bottleneck.

Imagine that tomorrow all the males in this planet become sterile or die, all but one. If this guy manages to reproduce (well, what would be the odds he wouldn't?), in a relatively short term the human population will raise again.

If you sample the population you will find that they all have something similar, because they all descend from a single male, and apparently it's possible put also a date to that event.

Does this mean that tomorrow is the start of a new humankind? That we are not the same humans as the children of this guy?

Of course not. Neither TFA says that the father of humankind's father wasn't human (i.e. that we found genetic proof of Adam)

My argument is that if you hold some kind of beliefs, you tend to be less critical about stuff and jump to wrong conclusions, even assuming complete lack of malice.

I think it's a very human behavior. I'd really like to know which kind of beliefs (or to use a less emotionally charged term: opinions I take for granted) in other topics make me prone to having wrong judgements about stuff.