Un reliable means useless in this case. As this link leads to the “unreliable” Our of Africa theory:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html
“The original 1987 study involved mtDNA from 136 women from many parts of the world having various racial backgrounds. The analysis seemed to support the idea of a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a woman living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. Later, more detailed studies seemed to confirm this conclusion. Unfortunately though, there was a undetected bias in the computer program as well as with the researchers themselves. The researchers used a computer program designed to reveal a “maximum parsimony” phylogeny or the family tree with the least number of mutational changes. This was based on the assumption that evolution would have taken the most direct and efficient path (which is not necessarily true, or even likely). Also, the computer program was biased by the order of data entry to favor the information entered first. This problem was recognized when the computer gave different results depending on the order that the data was entered. Now, after thousands of computer runs with the data entered randomly, it appears that the “African origin” for modern humans does not hold a statistical significance over other possibilities.26
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as “garbage.” After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for “Eve” can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an “African Eve” has been invalidated.23”
As the rest of the link makes clear; GI-GO.
So sayeth you.
There are two problems that those who criticize this theory have in saying the mutation rates are faster than folks believe. First, proposing faster mutation rates cannot explain the fact that all human beings seem to have derived from the same original haplogroup.
Second, you cannot criticize the theory of evolution with any argument about genetic mutations unless you are arguing that they don't exist or are irrelevant to explaining the origin of species.
The underlying problem is a hard problem in computational biology. With the state of computing in 1987 it would have been absurdly hard. With the million fold increase in the speed and power of computers from then until now, what was absurdly hard has become routine, and sifting through a billion trees is just about trivial.
Try looking up "parsimony dna mutation computation" or some such on google and write me a summary of the top 4 mathematical papers (published in the last 5 years) that you find on the subject.