The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents

Okay, I just found a source which seems to think that we are not as genetically diverse as everyone has been saying. It appears to be from a doctor at Harvard. Any ideas, thoughts?

hahaha, how typical of me. I forgot to post the sourceScientists have observed that there is a major problem in the human population that doesn't fit Darwinian theory. The genetic diversity of humans is much less than that expected from a population that theoretically speciated several hundred thousands years ago. According to Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) "It's a mystery none of us can explain." Their conclusion is that the human population must have went through a "population bottleneck" of 10,000 or fewer individuals from 400,000 to 12,000 years ago. However, Jan Klein (Max Planck Institute, Tbingen, Germany) and Dr. Francisco Ayala (University of California, Irvine) say that a population of 10,000 does not represent a bottleneck, since this is the standard breeding population of many species. Another alternative is that modern humans did not evolve from apes, but were created more recently than 400,000 years ago. Many recent studies support this hypothesis (see below). (Gibbons, A. 1995. The mystery of humanity's missing mutations. Science 267: 35-36.)

What I was defending against was just that everyone was saying how genetically diverse we are as humans and how 50-60 thousand years can't explain this. What I was hoping to present was someone's opinion that we are not at all as genetically diverse as we should be if our human origins were say millions of years old. Aside from what I posted isn't it also true that modern humans only differ from one another by 6 or so base pairs?