No, I did not read Kemp’s paper before forming my thoughts. He does not even deal with sole-progenitorship, but only with monogenesis. In error, he does not make a distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry.
He made some good points, but ultimately his proposal fails. It is not scientifically plausible. Its real value is in that it is precedence for using “monogenesis” in the same way I am using “sole-progenitorship.” It is also one of many examples (which are already cited) for using a different meaning for “human” in theology. That value is very depreciated as that is already well established (though under exploited).
He is one of many voices. I’m trying to catalogue them all, or at least as many as I can. However, his proposal is very different than what I propose here, and it is not even biologically plausible.