Pro / con · genetics · highest sources we can cite

Are humans “~3,000 generations” old by genetics?

A responsible window: convert the slogan into years, quote peer-reviewed TMRCA ranges, list pro and con. Biased toward God — not toward cartoon science.

Years → generations (25 y/gen rule of thumb) ~3,000 gen ≈ 75,000 y ~6,000 gen ≈ 150,000 y (mid mtDNA band) ~8,000 gen ≈ 200,000 y (upper mtDNA Eve band)

Figure 1. Rule-of-thumb conversion at 25 years/generation.

Unit check: 3,000 generations × 25 y/gen ≈ 75,000 years. Many genetics headlines about “mitochondrial Eve” sit nearer 100–200 thousand years (≈ 4,000–8,000 generations at 25 y/gen) — so “3,000 generations” is a specific slogan, not the whole literature.

Pro · why people say ~3,000 generations

Con · what top academic sources actually report

Honest dependency (not a gotcha cartoon)

TMRCA is not “the first human.” It is the coalescence time of a locus under a mutation-rate + demographic model. Change the rate calibration (pedigree vs fossil vs ancient tip) and the year count moves — see our dating dependencies page.

Bias stated: we believe God is real (Theorem G). We still quote the journals. We reject flat-earth shortcuts. You may conclude young, deep, or “model-bound” — but do it with units and citations.

Penny / 31 model · Ham/Nye math · Theorem G

Defend Your Sins · biased toward God · responsible · no flat-earth theater · cite academics · decide yourself