I just had a look at the video you posted. It was amusing, however there is small problem with the analogy. The problem is the usually creationistic parody version of science.
The creationistic parody states that you 1) start with a blank paper with dots (wrong), and then 2) draw a tree (wrong), by 3) connecting similar (wrong) dots with lines. This is utter nonsense and a straw man of gigantic proportions since this is not even remotely close to how it is done.
Relationships are built by
separating that which is most
different from
everything else. That involves starting with a
fully connected graph which you prune until you gone through a comparison of everything against everything. After pruning is done the end result should be a
tree or else somethings is wrong.
(A remaining graph implies a loop and if a loop exists then you have either been using bad data, e.g. characteristics which is not inherent, or you have falsified the theory of evolution and can collect the Nobel Prize in Biology. Example on what wold create loops are
crockoducks, griffins, centaurs and unicorns).
This is the completely opposite of what creationist claims to be the case. (Not to mention ignorant claim that evolution says anything is possible such as cockoducks and other forms of ridiculous chimeras). For this reason and many others, I don't hesitate to say that creationist are liars which obscures science in general and biology in particular.
What you seems not to know or ignore is the fact that the conclusion of a common ancestry has its foundation in well established theoretical mathematical theories such as
graph and
set theory. Set theory is related to
mathematical logic. That means the power of
logical reasoning can be expressed as set. Graphs and trees are sets, do I need to say more? Most of that math I do not understand, but I know enough to understand what it has to say about the theory of evolution. The math clearly states:
common ancestor is a fact!
Every fool seems to think they are qualified to have a critical opinion in biology and particular common ancestor, but the fact is most non-biologists have no clue what they are talking about (and I am including myself in this). Every critical non-biologist lack the necessary knowledge (the biology
and the math) to understand biology at a deeper level, most does not even get the simplest basics high school biology correct. In particular this is true when it comes to creationists which knowledge is close to zero on virtual any subject except the bible.
Creationist's claims implies the supporting math theories are wrong... how likely is that considering we have not seen any refutation of these mathematical theories in any peer reviewed math journal ? Not very likely at all....
Put it another way; if God is the great mathematician, does creationists then claim God to be a liar? I am prone to say 'yes' to that.
For the now utterly confused reader I present the simplified short version:
The Official Creationist to English Dictionary:
Lie 1 similar = different
Lie 2 connect = disconnect
Lie 3 single = everything
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour!
