MEN HAVE A BIOLOGICAL CLOCK! Wow, so if a man in his 30s has a child with an age appropriate woman (in her 30s) the chance of genetic mutations is higher. What if he has a child with a 20 year old woman? Source reeks of femoid cope and projection
Do we need to worry about this mutation shit or this is just roast seething? 1% seems very low. The '30-50% increase' actually translates to going from a 1% risk of autism for example to 1.3-1.5%. The risk from older mothers is still higher.
t's understandable to fail as a man and not reproduce. Yoh have to be born with a sharp wit and drive to be at least a top 20% individual. You're going up against established older men in a ponzi scheme. The supply and demand factors always favor women, there are more men to choose from.
But how do you fail as a woman? Seriously. Failing as a woman in life is the most pathetic result possible. It's just amazing... especially in the age where the gov will redistribute resources for your kids...
Notice the Maternal band stops at 46? That's the actual biological clock. No more babies after that. And where the heck are they getting data on the offspring of 60yr old men? Most guys are done by 40 or 50.
They're cherrypicking de novo mutations, but the relevant question would be detectable diseases / issues in the children.
We can see how few samples they have in this study - the number of discrete dots. Here's a study that looked at 12 million births - once adjusted for maternal age, paternal age has almost no effect on chromosomal disorders:
Even easier the linear regression in the picture of this post is done badly.
It can be seen by how the dots on the older men spread more than younger ones, which means that the phenomenon cannot be explained by the male age alone but there is some other variable not taken into account.
Meanwhile if you look at the women's line you see how younger and older women have dots that do not spread, even when the risk raises. That shows that women's age alone is a good predictor of mutations in children...
It doesn't take a genius to understand that it all depends on women's age since it takes 2 to tango
In other words, a 30-year-old man will need to have kids with an 18-year-old woman in order to prevent the kids from having any negative de novo mutations. Makes perfect sense.
Bear in mind there is going to be some heavy fitness selection at play when it comes to sperm - unfit/degraded ones are naturally going to have a harder time beating the less degraded sperm to the egg, which doesn't have to beat thousands of other eggs.
Degraded sperm might be negligable in a 20 yos egg but have an interaction with a 35 yos egg
or the degraded sperm only effects traits carried in the Y-chromosome, and the odds of any mutations manifesting are slim-to-none no matter what the woman's age is.
Whereas once a woman is past 30, the odds of her even getting pregnant for the first time are tiny, and it's considered a geriatric pregnancy, and additionally as a woman ages, while the odds of getting pregnant drop off a cliff, the odds of birthing a retard skyrocket.
the reality is that as women go past 25 the odds of birth defects rise. The odds of conception are different from odds of defects, but they are also affected.
In what sense? They produce less of it. But you really don't need much! One will do.
The question is all about birth defects - and the best studies have shown that it has NOTHING to do with paternal age and EVERYTHING to do with maternal age.
It's just that the facts don't suit the current cultural norms - so the thing to do is to ignore science and just resort to junk science.
Oh no, it's been proven that once a guy is past 50 or 60 (I forget which), and controlling for the mother's age, the odds that he fathers a child with a birth defect doubles.
If you take into account the size of the cohorts studied and the miniscule effects observed, none of the studies (that proport to show an correlation between increased paternal age and birth defects) would even be considered. We are talking about effects so small that they fall below the threshold for 'measurement error'.
I guarantee you that If I had access to the data I could present you a paper that showed a decrease in birth defects correlated with increases in the fathers age. Guarantee it. And the effect would be greater than 0.001 to 0.002%
I'm guessing that the decrease would be attributable to the better living conditions associated with older fathers, as they are likely to be significantly wealthier. Older fathers are also associated with native born (non immigrants) and because wealthier, the mothers are going to be less likely to be working in manual work with exposure to chemical hazards. The household is less likely to be damp, cold, too hot etc and the nutrition and medical care of a wealthy household will have effects as well.
As always - science is very easy to pervert. The most common way is with selectivity.
Think about it - If we ran the numbers 11 times, and showed a inverse correlation between paternal age and birth defects, what would a modern university do? It would keep running the numbers until they found a way to show a (miniscule and insignificant) positive correlation.
They would then publish that and forget about the 11 other studies.
This graph is stupid as fuck. She's pompously dunking on men for having a biological clock while the female data points literally END at 45, because they have a biological clock and run out of eggs. I hope other commenters owned her in the comments for this
I have seen this cultural trope (the idea that older men have more birth defects) being repeated A LOT recently.
It's the best example I can find of how delicate science is. Science is really about the truth, that is what its about. But its very very easy to allow social constructs (such as gender politics, wokism etc) to bend the truth. Once you let go of the idea of objectivity, you can prove whatever you want with science. You could 'prove' that the decline in the population of the lesser Yellow backed butterfly in Finland is causing property values to decline in Tokyo. Just with a scatter graph.
The truth is that once you control for maternal age there is virtually no difference at all.
My question for feminists that believe that biological clock for men theory would be this:
What would your response be if we ran the studies and we found that paternal age was inversely correlated with birth defects? What would your response to that be?
Seagram7 1mo ago
Do we need to worry about this mutation shit or this is just roast seething? 1% seems very low. The '30-50% increase' actually translates to going from a 1% risk of autism for example to 1.3-1.5%. The risk from older mothers is still higher.
t's understandable to fail as a man and not reproduce. Yoh have to be born with a sharp wit and drive to be at least a top 20% individual. You're going up against established older men in a ponzi scheme. The supply and demand factors always favor women, there are more men to choose from.
But how do you fail as a woman? Seriously. Failing as a woman in life is the most pathetic result possible. It's just amazing... especially in the age where the gov will redistribute resources for your kids...
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1mo ago
Mutations aren't necessarily bad. Id like to see data on actual health problems or deformities
whytehorse2021 1mo ago
Notice the Maternal band stops at 46? That's the actual biological clock. No more babies after that. And where the heck are they getting data on the offspring of 60yr old men? Most guys are done by 40 or 50.
oowiw 1mo ago
They're cherrypicking de novo mutations, but the relevant question would be detectable diseases / issues in the children.
We can see how few samples they have in this study - the number of discrete dots. Here's a study that looked at 12 million births - once adjusted for maternal age, paternal age has almost no effect on chromosomal disorders:
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0720-1/figures/2
In fact when it comes to downs syndrome, it looks a tad lower the older the father gets: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0720-1/figures/3
Silly_birb_returns 1mo ago
Even easier the linear regression in the picture of this post is done badly.
It can be seen by how the dots on the older men spread more than younger ones, which means that the phenomenon cannot be explained by the male age alone but there is some other variable not taken into account.
Meanwhile if you look at the women's line you see how younger and older women have dots that do not spread, even when the risk raises. That shows that women's age alone is a good predictor of mutations in children...
It doesn't take a genius to understand that it all depends on women's age since it takes 2 to tango
Lone_Ranger 2 1mo ago
once adjusted for maternal age, paternal age has almost no effect on chromosomal disorders
This cannot be said loud enough.
The cherry picking of data here is a clear and obvious example of politics (woke politics) perverting science.
No-Stress-Cat 1mo ago
In other words, a 30-year-old man will need to have kids with an 18-year-old woman in order to prevent the kids from having any negative de novo mutations. Makes perfect sense.
Typo-MAGAshiv 2 1mo ago
Men's sperm does degrade with age, but the effects are negligible. The age of the mother has far more effect than the age of the father.
Look at Al Pacino and Mick Jagger, knocking up women in their twenties and having babies with zero issues.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1mo ago
Probably an interaction effect if I had to guess (nerd speak for one variable has an effect only when acted on with with another present variable)
Degraded sperm might be negligable in a 20 yos egg but have an interaction with a 35 yos egg
Would need to see data on it but I'm guessing it's probably an interaction effect if anything (bad sperm aside)
Overkill_Engine 2 1mo ago
Bear in mind there is going to be some heavy fitness selection at play when it comes to sperm - unfit/degraded ones are naturally going to have a harder time beating the less degraded sperm to the egg, which doesn't have to beat thousands of other eggs.
Typo-MAGAshiv 2 1mo ago
or the degraded sperm only effects traits carried in the Y-chromosome, and the odds of any mutations manifesting are slim-to-none no matter what the woman's age is.
Whereas once a woman is past 30, the odds of her even getting pregnant for the first time are tiny, and it's considered a geriatric pregnancy, and additionally as a woman ages, while the odds of getting pregnant drop off a cliff, the odds of birthing a retard skyrocket.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1mo ago
Not sure just speculating on my part but I'll take.yiur word for it
Lone_Ranger 2 1mo ago
the reality is that as women go past 25 the odds of birth defects rise. The odds of conception are different from odds of defects, but they are also affected.
Lone_Ranger 2 1mo ago
Men's sperm degrades with time....
In what sense? They produce less of it. But you really don't need much! One will do.
The question is all about birth defects - and the best studies have shown that it has NOTHING to do with paternal age and EVERYTHING to do with maternal age.
It's just that the facts don't suit the current cultural norms - so the thing to do is to ignore science and just resort to junk science.
Typo-MAGAshiv 2 1mo ago
Oh no, it's been proven that once a guy is past 50 or 60 (I forget which), and controlling for the mother's age, the odds that he fathers a child with a birth defect doubles.
...from 0.001% to 0.002%.
take that, patriarchy!
Lone_Ranger 2 1mo ago
If you take into account the size of the cohorts studied and the miniscule effects observed, none of the studies (that proport to show an correlation between increased paternal age and birth defects) would even be considered. We are talking about effects so small that they fall below the threshold for 'measurement error'.
I guarantee you that If I had access to the data I could present you a paper that showed a decrease in birth defects correlated with increases in the fathers age. Guarantee it. And the effect would be greater than 0.001 to 0.002%
I'm guessing that the decrease would be attributable to the better living conditions associated with older fathers, as they are likely to be significantly wealthier. Older fathers are also associated with native born (non immigrants) and because wealthier, the mothers are going to be less likely to be working in manual work with exposure to chemical hazards. The household is less likely to be damp, cold, too hot etc and the nutrition and medical care of a wealthy household will have effects as well.
As always - science is very easy to pervert. The most common way is with selectivity.
Think about it - If we ran the numbers 11 times, and showed a inverse correlation between paternal age and birth defects, what would a modern university do? It would keep running the numbers until they found a way to show a (miniscule and insignificant) positive correlation.
They would then publish that and forget about the 11 other studies.
Thats how modern science works.
Typo-MAGAshiv 2 1mo ago
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
Vermillion-Rx Admin 1mo ago
This graph is stupid as fuck. She's pompously dunking on men for having a biological clock while the female data points literally END at 45, because they have a biological clock and run out of eggs. I hope other commenters owned her in the comments for this
Lone_Ranger 2 1mo ago
I have seen this cultural trope (the idea that older men have more birth defects) being repeated A LOT recently.
It's the best example I can find of how delicate science is. Science is really about the truth, that is what its about. But its very very easy to allow social constructs (such as gender politics, wokism etc) to bend the truth. Once you let go of the idea of objectivity, you can prove whatever you want with science. You could 'prove' that the decline in the population of the lesser Yellow backed butterfly in Finland is causing property values to decline in Tokyo. Just with a scatter graph.
The truth is that once you control for maternal age there is virtually no difference at all.
My question for feminists that believe that biological clock for men theory would be this:
What would your response be if we ran the studies and we found that paternal age was inversely correlated with birth defects? What would your response to that be?
I'm very curious. I'm waiting for their response.
financehardo420 1mo ago
Notice the key presumption here…
“if a man in his 30s has a child with an AGE APPROPRIATE woman (IN HER 30s)”
Science has long established the fact that once a woman hits her 30s and gets pregnant the likelihood of genetic mutations is much higher.
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=risks-of-pregnancy-over-age-30-90-P02481
Peak Karen behavior