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).
Ooops. I was thinking backwards! This would make the females on the ark more genetically diverse, and indeed make their "genealogy" appear older. If they were tested at the time anyway. Still there were only 4 women, and I'm given to understand that the mathematics of population genetics suggest that a population even as large as some 10,000 individuals is apt to produce only one mitochondrial DNA lineage in the long run. Add to that the fact that the techniques you're appealing to can only resolve differences on the scale of tens of thousands of years, and even on the literalist ark scenario men and women (and all species preserved on the ark) should appear to be EQUALLY "old" on this evidence. This, however, is not the case.
Not to make too much of it, but if we are all descended from Noah and his sons and daughters, then the Y-chromosome is bottlenecked at one in the recent past. In fact, there should only be one version of the Y-chromosome.