This is where the number of years you were asking about comes from. It's nothing directly calculated from the DNA; and the authors don't put any number on it. All they're saying is that humans have a similar pattern of diversity to other species, implying a similarity in population history. Journalists are then looking up estimates for the origins of Homo sapiens (50,000, 100,000, 200,000 years) and extrapolating that most species are as old as whichever estimate they picked.
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.
What are we actually looking at? We're looking at how long the mitochondrial genome has had to accumulate neutral variations - the more neutral variations, the longer it is since we can trace a populations mitochondrial diversity back to a small group of individuals. Is that the origin of a species?
You'd have to have a very reliable rate of accumulation of those "neutral variations," by which I suppose you mean mutations, right? But how reliable could such a number be?
I think I get the general point you're making: can't really tell anything about origins from the mitochondrial information?