A nearly unreadable mess! There are a few modern inventions that you might want to learn something about: formatting, newlines, paragraphs. It's amazing what they can do for your and especially for us!
Perhaps once you've reformed this mess into something that we can actually read, then we might have some chance of addressing your two "hypotheses" -- we need to, after all, first determine just what it is you're trying to say.
E. Such a 'plateau' threshold would require this first human to have a mate with an identical chromosomal makeup- which is possible only if she is cloned from him.
Same old typical creationist nonsensical claim of "when the first 'hopeful monster' sprang into being, where did it find another 'hopeful monster' of the same type to mate with?" Yes, I know you distance yourself from the typical creationists, but this demonstrates the same erroneous thinking and assumptions that they use.
To start with, evolution does not work through sudden "hopeful monster" leaps (AKA "saltation", in which new complex changes suddenly arise; many early evolutionists subscribed to saltation, whereas Darwin did not). Rather, the degree to which each generation of a changing population changes is very slight; "sudden" changes in the fossil record (in geologic time, so in thousands of years) result from the accumulation of lots of small gradual changes with each generation (in generational time, so in one to a couple tens of years, depending on the species in question).
That being the case, individuals born to a population will have very little problem finding mates -- outside of the usual dating problems we've all had. Within a single generation, no individual will have had his genome change so radically as to be unable to mate; indeed, those to whom that may happen will be unable to mate and will not have contributed to the evolution of that species -- large-scale mutation is maladaptive and gets filtered out.
™ Version 4.2
(1)