Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,325
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
The results seem to hold over four generations and four geographic areas.
See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/03/08/042788.full.pdf
"Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations (Kong et al., 2012). Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted that the offspring of older fathers would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness. In a sibling control study, we find clear support for negative paternal age effects on offspring survival, mating and reproductive success across four large populations with an aggregate N > 1.3 million in main analyses. Compared to a sibling born when the father was 10 years younger, individuals had 4-13% fewer surviving children in the four populations. Three populations were pre-industrial (1670-1850) Western populations and showed a pattern of paternal age effects across the offspring's lifespan. In 20th-century Sweden, we found no negative paternal age effects on child survival or marriage odds. Effects survived tests for competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time. We can use this understanding to predict the effect of increasingly delayed reproduction on offspring genetic load, mortality and fertility."
It seems that with all the advantages of modern medicine, the disadvantages can be ameliorated.
That wasn't the case in prior eras. That means that this social construct, where older men who have acquired more wealth and power have more access to women, was actually not very beneficial in terms of the overall health of the population, yes? Their genes would not, in those cases, be disproportionately being passed down, so how does impact our understanding of the processes of the past?
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/03/08/042788.full.pdf
"Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations (Kong et al., 2012). Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted that the offspring of older fathers would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness. In a sibling control study, we find clear support for negative paternal age effects on offspring survival, mating and reproductive success across four large populations with an aggregate N > 1.3 million in main analyses. Compared to a sibling born when the father was 10 years younger, individuals had 4-13% fewer surviving children in the four populations. Three populations were pre-industrial (1670-1850) Western populations and showed a pattern of paternal age effects across the offspring's lifespan. In 20th-century Sweden, we found no negative paternal age effects on child survival or marriage odds. Effects survived tests for competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time. We can use this understanding to predict the effect of increasingly delayed reproduction on offspring genetic load, mortality and fertility."
It seems that with all the advantages of modern medicine, the disadvantages can be ameliorated.
That wasn't the case in prior eras. That means that this social construct, where older men who have acquired more wealth and power have more access to women, was actually not very beneficial in terms of the overall health of the population, yes? Their genes would not, in those cases, be disproportionately being passed down, so how does impact our understanding of the processes of the past?
[FONT="]
[/FONT]