naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 27, 2016 8:59:29 GMT -5
What is the evolutionary trait that allows a man to become a father all his life but a woman has time limits..biologically speaking of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 10:55:37 GMT -5
Well, one parent is going to have to be around to raise this baby until it's old enough to survive on it's own or it's kind of a wasted effort. And since the woman is the one physically invested from the get go, and the only one back in the day that could actually feed an infant, it makes sense that her age would be the gate. There's a lot invested in getting a human from conception to an independent state, and evolutionary speaking, the odds of succeeding are much higher with a younger woman. Species that produce offspring that are self sufficient quickly tend to be fertile right up until the end of their life.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,889
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 27, 2016 12:49:49 GMT -5
Well, one parent is going to have to be around to raise this baby until it's old enough to survive on it's own or it's kind of a wasted effort. And since the woman is the one physically invested from the get go, and the only one back in the day that could actually feed an infant, it makes sense that her age would be the gate. There's a lot invested in getting a human from conception to an independent state, and evolutionary speaking, the odds of succeeding are much higher with a younger woman. Species that produce offspring that are self sufficient quickly tend to be fertile right up until the end of their life. That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 13:32:32 GMT -5
Well, one parent is going to have to be around to raise this baby until it's old enough to survive on it's own or it's kind of a wasted effort. And since the woman is the one physically invested from the get go, and the only one back in the day that could actually feed an infant, it makes sense that her age would be the gate. There's a lot invested in getting a human from conception to an independent state, and evolutionary speaking, the odds of succeeding are much higher with a younger woman. Species that produce offspring that are self sufficient quickly tend to be fertile right up until the end of their life. That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age Well, childbirth is inherently more dangerous than sex, and typically the baby died too or soon after if the mother died. But, it may be that we're just living longer than our reproductive systems were designed. The life expectancy in the early 1800's was only in the 40's. Women are born with all the eggs she'll ever have and they just keep getting older and less viable as the years go on. Men are making fresh new sperm constantly. Their purpose (biologically speaking) was to impregnate as many fertile women as possible, while the women had a lot more at stake to make sure the ones they had survived. Humans really aren't subject to natural selection anymore. It's not the survival of the fittest. People with genetic abnormalities or diseases that would have normally killed them long before they were old enough to reproduce are now living well into old age. My oldest would never be here if it had been 100 years ago. His Dad was an insulin dependent diabetic from childhood and would have likely died before he was a teen.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Nov 27, 2016 13:57:13 GMT -5
The most common theory I've heard is that menopause essentially allows for grandmothering - securing more resources for kids with less competition. The evolutionary path would look something like this - women who went through menopause at an earlier age were able to help raise their grandchildren, securing additional resources for infants and children (finding or producing extra food, extra person to protect them, etc.) There was less competition for resources between children vs. in the animal kingdom older children will often kill younger ones. If that meant more of those children survived, they then passed along both that behavior and their fertility limitations.
Another theory I've seen floated is that it reduces friction/resource competition between women and their mother-in-laws (using as an easy way to understand the relationship with a male mate's mother even without legal bonds.)
There are many other theories as well - the "we didn't used to live very long, so it didn't matter" theory - as well as that it's a biological accident (if you go through menopause early, are you more fertile in the early, healthier years) or that this gene has hitchhiked on another gene that was actually useful, to use a random example the gene that makes women have wider pelvic openings that allow for easier birth.
You might be better served doing the research yourself in future vs. crowdsourcing this kind of info. You will most likely find it a better way to expand your brain, and be able to read a much wider variety of information.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 27, 2016 14:00:50 GMT -5
That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age Well, childbirth is inherently more dangerous than sex, and typically the baby died too or soon after if the mother died. But, it may be that we're just living longer than our reproductive systems were designed. The life expectancy in the early 1800's was only in the 40's. Women are born with all the eggs she'll ever have and they just keep getting older and less viable as the years go on. Men are making fresh new sperm constantly. Their purpose (biologically speaking) was to impregnate as many fertile women as possible, while the women had a lot more at stake to make sure the ones they had survived. Humans really aren't subject to natural selection anymore. It's not the survival of the fittest. People with genetic abnormalities or diseases that would have normally killed them long before they were old enough to reproduce are now living well into old age. My oldest would never be here if it had been 100 years ago. His Dad was an insulin dependent diabetic from childhood and would have likely died before he was a teen. We ARE selecting these days, just not in the ways that nature used to select. With the advent of gene technology, most genetic diseases should be selected out in a generation or 2. Once upon the time, if you were a carrier of Huntington's disease, your only choice was to not have kids. Now, you can have the kids but they can be genetically selected not to carry the gene. Same with CF and other diseases where there is a clear genetic marker.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 27, 2016 16:30:52 GMT -5
Well, one parent is going to have to be around to raise this baby until it's old enough to survive on it's own or it's kind of a wasted effort. And since the woman is the one physically invested from the get go, and the only one back in the day that could actually feed an infant, it makes sense that her age would be the gate. There's a lot invested in getting a human from conception to an independent state, and evolutionary speaking, the odds of succeeding are much higher with a younger woman. Species that produce offspring that are self sufficient quickly tend to be fertile right up until the end of their life. That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age Are you sure about the fertility of older men? And what counts as 'older'? FWIW: I've got examples of 50yo and older women in my family tree who had healthy kids - so it's not like EVERY woman is doomed to infertility once she turns 38 or 40. I suspect that male infertility goes up as they age as well. FWIW: I suspect that for humans the whole life long term 'fertility' thing isn't really all that important in terms of 'evolution'. Generally younger men and women (who were born with appropriate and functional reproductive organs) probably have the best chance of conceiving a healthy baby. If they are younger they may not have encountered as many diseases that effect reproduction (STDs, things like Measles? and some other common childhood diseases that are somewhat cyclical over long periods of time - meaning a child might avoid it as a child but catch it as a young adult - when the next wave came along). I don't think there was much 'environmental' pressure for older men/women to reproduce.
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 27, 2016 16:44:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure about what u wrote in the OP, but as to the TITLE of the thread--I heard rugs are good for that kind of thing....particularly the wacky tobacci
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,784
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 27, 2016 16:53:49 GMT -5
That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age Are you sure about the fertility of older men? And what counts as 'older'? FWIW: I've got examples of 50yo and older women in my family tree who had healthy kids - so it's not like EVERY woman is doomed to infertility once she turns 38 or 40. I suspect that male infertility goes up as they age as well. FWIW: I suspect that for humans the whole life long term 'fertility' thing isn't really all that important in terms of 'evolution'. Generally younger men and women (who were born with appropriate and functional reproductive organs) probably have the best chance of conceiving a healthy baby. If they are younger they may not have encountered as many diseases that effect reproduction (STDs, things like Measles? and some other common childhood diseases that are somewhat cyclical over long periods of time - meaning a child might avoid it as a child but catch it as a young adult - when the next wave came along). I don't think there was much 'environmental' pressure for older men/women to reproduce. You have multiple examples of women over 50 getting pregnant naturally? That is pretty rare. It does happen, but not very often, so I am surprised to hear that your family has the fortune to have several cases.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 27, 2016 17:11:46 GMT -5
That sounds kind of logical, but it can't really be the reason. After all, it is not that long ago that many women died in childbirth yet men have always been able to sire children well into old age Are you sure about the fertility of older men? And what counts as 'older'? FWIW: I've got examples of 50yo and older women in my family tree who had healthy kids - so it's not like EVERY woman is doomed to infertility once she turns 38 or 40. I suspect that male infertility goes up as they age as well. FWIW: I suspect that for humans the whole life long term 'fertility' thing isn't really all that important in terms of 'evolution'. Generally younger men and women (who were born with appropriate and functional reproductive organs) probably have the best chance of conceiving a healthy baby. If they are younger they may not have encountered as many diseases that effect reproduction (STDs, things like Measles? and some other common childhood diseases that are somewhat cyclical over long periods of time - meaning a child might avoid it as a child but catch it as a young adult - when the next wave came along). I don't think there was much 'environmental' pressure for older men/women to reproduce. But past generations DID reproduce when they were much older. My grandmother on my mom's side had 3 female siblings (they were born between 1900-1915). Every single female in their generation had a child when they were 50 or older. It is really bizarre in that it means that my mom's first cousin was closer in age to me than my mom. My cousin is 61, 4 years older than me, and his oldest brother is 89 and my mom would be 87 if she was alive). It wasn't so much as environmental pressure to reproduce, but kids born during their mother's early menopause years. These days, most women or their spouses are either fixed or on some sort of BC if they don't want kids.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 27, 2016 18:21:25 GMT -5
We are born with all our eggs and don't make any more, but males don't start making viable sperm until puberty and they constantly produce new sperm.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 27, 2016 18:39:32 GMT -5
What MJ said, but why? I really need to work on my titles.
This chain of events..
Reading Daily Mail..
Clicked on a article about Steve Martin..
Said he had his first child at 67...
My mind went hmm...
I posed the question for theories on here..
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 27, 2016 18:40:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure about what u wrote in the OP, but as to the TITLE of the thread--I heard rugs are good for that kind of thing....particularly the wacky tobacci
I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Nov 28, 2016 4:59:25 GMT -5
Girls had babies much younger in the early history of mankind. A girl would have babies starting in puberty so might have a dozen or more kids before she was 30. Very hard on the body and keeping them fed, some died young both mothers and children. Kids were adults much younger even in the 1800s a couple might marry and have children at 12-14, if they were farmers or other unskilled work as soon as they were about full grown. If the girl/woman died the man might need a new wife who he would have more children with. Some men would still be finding young wives when the orginal wife was old or dead. Look at PE Trump at 70 with a 10 year old, third wife, third family, his first wife probably isn't still having children but his fourth wife might want one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 7:11:25 GMT -5
Evolution by definition is random, so you will never uncover an 'original meaning' for why something exists... instead it's examining why a random trait developed dominance, as several posters have offered.
Mich, that wasn't routine, babies after 50 must be a family anomaly.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 28, 2016 9:47:27 GMT -5
Interesting point Anne.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 28, 2016 12:10:08 GMT -5
What MJ said, but why? I really need to work on my titles. This chain of events.. Reading Daily Mail.. Clicked on a article about Steve Martin.. Said he had his first child at 67... My mind went hmm... I posed the question for theories on here..
Well, women could do that too - they could have their eggs harvested? and frozen and then in their 60's they could use a surrogate. I think the eggs/sperm frozen is something that perhaps adult cancer patients can opt to do - since the cancer treatment may make them infertile.
I'm guessing that perhaps he and who ever had the baby (wife? girlfriend? surrogate??) probably had some help with this pregnancy - that it didn't happen 'naturally' - guys sometimes 'shoot blanks' at that age. The 'little blue pill' isn't enough to insure a pregnancy.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 28, 2016 12:15:58 GMT -5
From an evolutionary standpoint, there is no "reason". Those characteristics and genes passed on because they survived throughout the generations... That's it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,109
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 28, 2016 12:30:38 GMT -5
Sperm take very little energy to produce. A man can produce THOUSANDS of sperm in one sitting whereas it takes my body a month to prepare an egg for fertilization. Then another nine months to house the fetus, then several more years to nurse.
It's very expensive from a biology standpoint to be a female. It makes no sense to spend large amounts of time/energy for the body to produce eggs like a male does sperm.
Somewhere along the way as sexual reproduction replaced asexual reproduction there was a trade-off. Perhaps a mutation happened that either turned a gene on or turned a gene off that made it more advantageous for females to house a limited number of eggs over her lifetime vs being able to continously produce them like a male does sperm.
What that trade-off was we don't know and may never know.
They still have not figured out why women go thru menopause, there are a lot of ideas floating around but nothing concrete. It ranges from we were never meant to live this long to it's an evolutionary safe guard to prevent older eggs (which contain higher rates of mutation) from being fertilized.
Men don't really produce sperm "forever" either. Men's sperm count will start to decline as they age and the mutation rate also increases just like it does for eggs. Their testosterone has also been shown to decline as they age just like women's estrogen levels do.
The main difference is men don't experience menstration so there is no obvious physical demonstration of their decline in fertility and hormones like there is women.
The reason you do not hear about it as much is because science is still fighting an uphill battle against deeply entrenched sexual/gender biases. A lot of the "data" showing that we are different goes back to Victorian times when there was little understanding about genetics and it was very advantageous for the status quo to "scientifically prove" that men were superior to women.
Science is proving that men/women are not that different from each other faster than society has been ready to accept it.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,160
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 28, 2016 12:33:02 GMT -5
Is it Mic Jagger that just fathered another kid at 72? Dude is not attractive to begin with.
But, I suppose the lure of fame, money, bragging rights that you bedded a huge star..some really do like that.
Steven Martin's wife was 41 when she gave birth. It's entirely possible it could have happened naturally. It is possible for a woman to conceive at that age. (And it's possible for her to have poor eggs by then, too.)
Some also feel a calling to be parents, no matter what the age. Lots of celebrity examples (David Letterman also comes to mind, along with Tony Randall).
I have a good family friend that adopted a 4 yo when my friend was in her 50s. I think she'll be 68-70 when her daughter graduates high school. She's really an amazing woman..and decided that after two husbands and losing her only bio child, that perhaps there was more out there for her. (Though, this last one dost not directly relate to your opening question.)
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 28, 2016 12:33:21 GMT -5
Are you sure about the fertility of older men? And what counts as 'older'? FWIW: I've got examples of 50yo and older women in my family tree who had healthy kids - so it's not like EVERY woman is doomed to infertility once she turns 38 or 40. I suspect that male infertility goes up as they age as well. FWIW: I suspect that for humans the whole life long term 'fertility' thing isn't really all that important in terms of 'evolution'. Generally younger men and women (who were born with appropriate and functional reproductive organs) probably have the best chance of conceiving a healthy baby. If they are younger they may not have encountered as many diseases that effect reproduction (STDs, things like Measles? and some other common childhood diseases that are somewhat cyclical over long periods of time - meaning a child might avoid it as a child but catch it as a young adult - when the next wave came along). I don't think there was much 'environmental' pressure for older men/women to reproduce. But past generations DID reproduce when they were much older. My grandmother on my mom's side had 3 female siblings (they were born between 1900-1915). Every single female in their generation had a child when they were 50 or older. It is really bizarre in that it means that my mom's first cousin was closer in age to me than my mom. My cousin is 61, 4 years older than me, and his oldest brother is 89 and my mom would be 87 if she was alive). It wasn't so much as environmental pressure to reproduce, but kids born during their mother's early menopause years. These days, most women or their spouses are either fixed or on some sort of BC if they don't want kids. Yes, the late in life babies were more a pre 1960's thing on my mom's side of the family. My mom, the youngest, was a late in life baby (her mom was late 40's) this was in 1919. I think her oldest sibling (who survived to adulthood) was born in 1895.
I suspect that late in life fertility probably runs in families and isn't something that's across the board.
I'm pretty sure that since the 1960's with the advent of BC (and in some cases the access to abortion - I can totally see where a 40 yo woman (and her hubby) might truly seriously consider NOT have that 'surprise' baby when their other kids are all flying from the nest....), and then in the 80's/90's with it being more acceptable to have 'your tubes tied' after you've had a couple two three kids that the prevalence of "late in life" babies would become more of an anomaly.
Didn't Haley Barry have a 'surpise' baby after 40? Sarah Palin had a baby at 44 (and was pregnant at the same time as her daughter).
OK, both of these celebrities were in their mid to late 40's - and not their early 50's... but they are examples of women having babies presumably without 'medical intervention' well after the 'socially acceptable' time for women to have babies.
Why is a late in life baby assumed to be somewhat 'unnatural'? How come women can't have sex after they turn 30
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 12:37:56 GMT -5
I think up to about 45 is pretty normal. But after that it's pretty rare. In my family 43 seems to be the age the last one shows up for those that aren't using any form of prevention. My son was born when I was 41. I conceived him less than 2 months after going off BC, and the pregnancy and birth was uneventful.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 12:39:34 GMT -5
Having sex and being fertile aren't the same thing...
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,160
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 28, 2016 12:45:02 GMT -5
Why is a late in life baby assumed to be somewhat 'unnatural'? How come women can't have sex after they turn 30
I think it has to do with what we expect to see over the course of our lives. Personally, I would not want to bring a child into this world knowing the odds were against me that I might not see them graduate college or get married. It's interesting how much of a difference two generations waiting until their mid-late 30's makes in terms of what a family looks like, in terms of which extended family is still around. I would be very sad if I couldn't at least watch my kids or grandkids get into young adulthood. I'd much rather get to know kids as people over cuddling a baby.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 12:49:04 GMT -5
Why is a late in life baby assumed to be somewhat 'unnatural'? How come women can't have sex after they turn 30
I think it has to do with what we expect to see over the course of our lives. Personally, I would not want to bring a child into this world knowing the odds were against me that I might not see them graduate college or get married. It's interesting how much of a difference two generations waiting until their mid-late 30's makes in terms of what a family looks like, in terms of which extended family is still around. I would be very sad if I couldn't at least watch my kids or grandkids get into young adulthood. I'd much rather get to know kids as people over cuddling a baby. People might be waiting longer to START having kids now, but back in the old days they started young and kept going until the baby factory shut down. I'm surrounded by retired farmers in their 80's and 90's that had kids over the span of 20+ years. It wasn't uncommon for nieces and nephews to be older than or in the same class as aunts and uncles.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Nov 28, 2016 13:16:18 GMT -5
Woman can get pregnant until menopause. I went to a doctor when I was 50 that suggested birth control pills, I had menopause at over 60 before it was all the way done. I didn't use birth control ever and never had kids so refused. My niece keeps getting babies and she is 46 now has two just a month apart. Foster babies but they keep giving them to her, she has adopted 3 of the fosters so far, wouldn't be shocked to see her keep another one or two if she keeps them so long they want adopted and become available.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,109
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 28, 2016 13:19:39 GMT -5
The gyno told my mom that in the final year of menopause you are SUPER fertile and there is also a higher chance of multiples . I forgot how long she recommended my mom stay on BC or they continue to use condoms before it was safe.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Nov 28, 2016 13:27:38 GMT -5
The gyno told my mom that in the final year of menopause you are SUPER fertile and there is also a higher chance of multiples . The idea of not only getting pregnant in my late 40s, but being pregnant with multiples makes me want to cry, then barf. Then cry some more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 15:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 13:28:43 GMT -5
I do know quite a few people who got pregnant in their 40s.... Many frewer of them resulted in a live birth however.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,109
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 28, 2016 13:49:34 GMT -5
It's not just humans that experience declines in fertility as they age. Mice can live up to three years but breeding wise start to decline at six months to a year.
I've had older females give birth. I had a two year old male that was solely responsible for reviving his strain. I've also had younger mice turn out to be duds.
But on average I start to get smaller less viable litters from six months onward.
|
|