Wow! Complete non-sequitor. Why couldn't it have been precisely the opposite? Indeed since the males were all direct relations, but the females weren't, i.e. were presumably only related by marriage, it should be the opposite, if anything. Or why, considering the extreme population bottleneck involved, shouldn't the genetic "genealogy" show to be equally as long for both sexes?
And why do you cite the fact (if it's so) that apes are more genetically diverse then humans as supporting your case? Weren't apes on the ark too, and even fewer of them (only two per species at most, or maybe only two period of the ape "kind") than of humans? Shouldn't they be either equally or even less genetically diverse than humans on the flood/ark scenario? Indeed shouldn't this be true of all species?
Finally, this evidence is not even able to resolve differences on the time scale between the creation and the flood (maybe 5 or 6 thousand years at most on the most "liberal" Biblical literalist scenario).
You mean, finally? Because so far, the results have made the creationists howl, and the "anti-creationists" quite comfortable indeed.
It seems that human beings are surprisingly un diverse for supposedly evolved creatures.
This is a nonsensical statement -- the amount of diversity in a population is independent of whether or not it is "evolved". All living things are "evolved", but the amount of diversity in various groups depends on various factors apart from that "evolvement". Try to learn something about a topic before you spout off about it.
In fact, we are only a small fraction as genetically diverse as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos.
Yeah, so?
One would think that since we have covered the entire earth that we would be much more diverse than apes who are, and always have been very geographically limited.
"One would think that" if one were ignorant of how genetics actually works, and the many conditions which affect genetic diversity.
The lesser genetic diversity in humans is likely due to something as simple as a population "bottleneck" -- at one point in time there were fewer humans than chimpanzees (or more to the point, fewer humans who eventually left descendants which survived to present day, regardless of the raw numbers alive at any given time). That heavily restricts genetic diversity despite the fact that we have subsequently rebounded spectacularly and covered the globe. If I recall correctly (and I'm too tired to look it up right now), the DNA results indicate that humans went through a pretty severe population bottleneck right about the time of the last ice age, which makes a lot of sense.
Geographic "coverage" is far less a contributing factor to genetic diversity than sheer numbers.
Genetic diversity is also reduced by things which see-saw population numbers up and down, such as periodic wars, famines, plagues, etc., things which humans have tended to experience more often than chimpanzees have.
It is also becoming evident that human beings, homo sapiens sapiens, (not to be confused with hominid animals) originated in a single location (Africa, Mesopotamia region) from a very small population.
Again -- yeah, so? That's generally the case for most new species.
The "out of Africa" model appears to be the more accurate. Some suggest that instead of out of Africa, the model should be called out of Eden.
Only if one wants to be inaccurate and force religious agendas upon geographic realities. Look, all new species have a particular geographic "birthplace" -- the fact that humans as we know it have one too hardly "proves" any creationist claims, since it's entirely consistent with noncreationist evolutionary origins.
You promised results which "are not going to make anti -creationists happy", but all you've managed to present are things which are perfectly in line with the predictions of natural origins.
Another startling result coming from molecular anthropology is data that strongly suggests that the human female genetic genealogy is at least several thousand years older than the male genealogy. It is an interesting riddle for those who don't believe in God, but for those who do, it is very clear.
Wow, are *you* confused. Sorry, but you're grossly misunderstanding (and/or misrepresenting) the "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" findings. They support nothing at all like the bizarre scenario you suggest. And it's no "riddle" at all for people who actually understand the results and what it says (and does not say) about our DNA.
Noah and his sons would be as far back as the male genealogy could be traced as they were effectively, our genetic Adams. Noah's wife and his son's genetic genealogy however, would continue right on back through time to the first homo sapiens sapiens.
That's a touching attempt to reconcile the findings of modern DNA analysis with ancient myths, but it falls on its face when examined in its details. First, you're grossly misunderstanding the actual significance of the "mitochondrial Eve" -- it is *not* our most recent common female ancestor, nor even the sole female ancestor of all living humans. The MtEve would have had female contemporaries who were *also* ancestors of modern humans, which blows away your whole attempt to equate her to the Biblical Eve right there. Furthermore, if she *had* been the sole female ancestor of all living humans at the time she has been determined to have lived (200,000 years ago, give or take a few), then human genetic diversity would be *FAR* smaller than it is today -- but it isn't. The facts are that the specific details of human genetic diversity *rules out* any "single ancestral pair" (like the Biblical Adam and Eve) at any time in our human history. Yes, there are clear indications that the human population has been "bottlenecked" in the past, but *no* indications that it was ever as restricted as a single pair, nor even a guy and his three sons and all their wives.
And so on, and so on. If you're going to try to "reconcile" the findings of modern DNA analysis with that of your Biblical scenarios, you're going to have to first make sure you actually *understand* the DNA results, and you very clearly do not.
To learn the many ways you have misrepresented the "mitochondrial Eve" results, see for example: What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?.