There's obviously an interesting underlying concept here, and I don't want to knock anyone's religion or belief system, let alone xriso's, but there seems to be a horrible flaw in the studies mentioned and the conclusions drawn from those studies.

The argument presented in the document xriso kindly referred me to and from whence he drew his information ( uses the lack of polymorphisms in the Y chromosome, and especially in the ZFY locus, to argue the relatively recent emergence of the latest human ancestor. The resources these studies are drawn from include papers from Science, Nature, and Genome Research, which are all well-renowned scientific journals. The commentary even mentions the australpithecenes, Cro-Magnon man, and the Neandertals and their relative closeness to Homo sapiens sapiens. But what the published studies, and consequently the commentary, seem to be lacking is any comparison between the Y chromosomes in Homo sapiens and the Y chromosomes in Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis (an earlier species), or Homo neandertalensis (Neandertals) to see if there is more interspecies variation or if, in fact, the lack of variation is due to necessity. (It is known that in some genes, even a single base pair substitution can be lethal.)

It seems to me that such explosive and, indeed, incendiary conclusions should have been better researched in order to make a more definite approximation of the dawn of Homo sapiens-kind. It seems obvious simply from the fact that no one can even decide on a range of, say, 20,000 years that the first of Homo sapiens sapiens came about, then we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about the likelihood of one male spawning an entire species.

** I'd like to state for the record that this writeup is not intended to rebut everything that xriso said. It is merely intended to warn against the jumping to unjustified (IMO) conclusions that happened in the source mentioned. Just so you all know.