Nice attempt at 'appeal to authority'. I realize you are a recognized expert at the 'red herring' and 'the bait and switch', but just for once, perhaps we can get your incredibly potent mind to stay on subject?
The point made was that the 'Y' chromosome can be used to trace back to our most recent common ancestor, at least for males, females have mitochondria, and that the variation we see today would not be possible if we had experienced a genetic bottleneck at the time and type of a Noachian flood.
Your response was that the 'Y' chromosome is too changeable for that to be accepted and that we should use mitochondrial DNA, which by the language used in your posts leads me to believe you feel the female MRCA, which biologists have called 'eve' (a poor choice in my opinion) is indeed the eve of the Bible.
You are obviously much more intelligent than I am so I hope my reply to you isn't too messed up. The 'Eve' of mitochondrial DNA is a single woman in a population of other women; she just happens to be the ancestor of all the women in our current population, not the only ancestor. The same applies to our most recent common male ancestor; he is but one of many alive at the time that contribute to our 'Y' chromosome.
"which by the language used in your posts leads me to believe you feel the female MRCA"
She repeatedly said X chromosome. Let's take her at her word that is what was meant.
That was not my response. I didn't get that far. Not that the Y was unacceptable. I was pointing out that the more interesting ancestral argument might be about Noah's wife, to which I was told I could not tell male from female. Or something like that.