See? You could not even follow what I did say. I never said there would be a new hap "about every 6th generation".<quoted text>
Some haps end. I get it. You've also acknowledged that not all haps end. You've also acknowledged the likelihood of a new generation of haps about every 6 generations of humans. You probably also recognize that not all present haps exist in equal abundance. Voila! Hap map generated. That is just where the math takes us.
I said that in a doubling from 3 original couples, we would expect one hap mutation to have occurred by then.
When the population grows, the number of hap mutations PER GENERATION grows because the total number of females grows. But this still is not connected to the likelihood that a new hap will become entrenched in the population permanently. THAT relates back to the very first calcs I showed you.
But you clearly did not get any of it. You keep getting it wrong and then saying I said things I did not (because as above, you misunderstand), or forming wrong conclusions.
Those who have followed the stats through have concluded a common ancestral female line from approx 200,000 years ago. Those creationists who know how it works and have tried to compress it to 4500 years have failed.
If you don't believe me, show me the alternative creationist calculations that make it work. They don't exist.