Study reveals average age at conception for men versus women over past 250,000 years

[Sophisticate]

Summary: Using a new method based upon comparing DNA mutation rates between parents and offspring, evolutionary biologists have revealed the average age of mothers versus fathers over the past 250,000 years, including the discovery that the age gap is shrinking, with women's average age at conception increasing from 23.2 years to 26.4 years, on average, in the past 5,000 years.

The length of a specific generation can tell us a lot about the biology and social organization of humans. Now, researchers at Indiana University can determine the average age that women and men had children throughout human evolutionary history with a new method they developed using DNA mutations. The researchers said this work can help us understand the environmental challenges experienced by our ancestors and may also help us in predicting the effects of future environmental change on human societies.

"Through our research on modern humans, we noticed that we could predict the age at which people had children from the types of DNA mutations they left to their children," said study co-author Matthew Hahn, Distinguished Professor of biology in the College of Arts and Sciences and of computer science in the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing and Engineering at IU Bloomington. "We then applied this model to our human ancestors to determine what age our ancestors procreated."

According to the study, published today in Science Advances and co-authored by IU post-doctoral researcher Richard Wang, the average age that humans had children throughout the past 250,000 years is 26.9. Furthermore, fathers were consistently older, at 30.7 years on average, than mothers, at 23.2 years on average, but the age gap has shrunk in the past 5,000 years, with the study's most recent estimates of maternal age averaging 26.4 years. The shrinking gap seems to largely be due to mothers having children at older ages.

Other than the recent uptick in maternal age at childbirth, the researchers found that parental age has not increased steadily from the past and may have dipped around 10,000 years ago because of population growth coinciding with the rise of civilization.

"These mutations from the past accumulate with every generation and exist in humans today," Wang said. "We can now identify these mutations, see how they differ between male and female parents, and how they change as a function of parental age."

Children's DNA inherited from their parents contains roughly 25 to 75 new mutations, which allows scientists to compare the parents and offspring, and then to classify the kind of mutation that occurred. When looking at mutations in thousands of children, IU researchers noticed a pattern: The kinds of mutations that children get depend on the ages of the mother and the father.

Previous genetic approaches to determining historical generation times relied on the compounding effects of either recombination or mutation of modern human DNA sequence divergence from ancient samples. But the results were averaged across both males and females and across the past 40,000 to 45,000 years.

Hahn, Wang and their co-authors built a model that uses de novo mutations -- a genetic alteration that is present for the first time in one family member as a result of a variant or mutation in a germ cell of one of the parents or that arises in the fertilized egg during early embryogenesis -- to separately estimate the male and female generation times at many different points throughout the past 250,000 years.

The researchers were not originally seeking to understand the relationship of gender and age at conception over time; they were conducting a broader investigation about the number of mutations passed from parents to children. They only noticed the age-based mutation patterns while seeking to understand differences and similarities between these patterns in humans versus other mammals, such as cats, bears and macaques.

"The story of human history is pieced together from a diverse set of sources: written records, archaeological findings, fossils, etc.," Wang said. "Our genomes, the DNA found in every one of our cells, offer a kind of manuscript of human evolutionary history. The findings from our genetic analysis confirm some things we knew from other sources (such as the recent rise in parental age), but also offer a richer understanding of the demography of ancient humans. These findings contribute to a better understanding of our shared history."

The main conclusion - women have always chosen to procreate with older men (which isn't surprising). Though I am surprised the average age of conception was much higher than I anticipated for women. So I guess archaic humans didn't chase teenagers.

Study reveals average age at conception for men versus women over past 250,000 years

Using a new method based upon comparing DNA mutation rates between parents and offspring, evolutionary biologists have revealed the average age of mothers versus fathers over the past 250,000 years, including the discovery that the age gap is shrinking, with women's average age at conception...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Danakiil]

Ooga booga prehistoric niggas aged between 23 - 30 waiting for their chance to get that caveshorty Malab seeing every dime piece get taken up by older man's

 

[Testo 21]

Ain't reading all that. That's gibberish to me. Tell me what fax those rely on.

There's no proof only allegations and assumption. Too early to jump conclusion.

Clearly someone made that up, for no reason.

 

[Angelina]

There was a Medieval British census I was reading the other day and the average woman had children at around 20-25. The idea of women marrying very young was only for the upper classes/elites.

 

[Angelina]

Ain't reading all that. That's gibberish to me. Tell me what fax those rely on.

There's no proof only allegations and assumption. Too early to jump conclusion.

Clearly someone made that up, for no reason.

Some nations has census’s. I’m not sure about this study though. But I was readying a medieval European census and women did usually marry in their 20s.

 

[Sophisticate]

Ooga booga prehistoric niggas aged between 23 - 30 waiting for their chance to get that caveshorty Malab seeing every dime piece get taken up by older man's

A lot of those poor men didn't even get a chance to procreate. Sadly, there were more women that went on to reproduce than men.

Ain't reading all that. That's gibberish to me. Tell me what fax those rely on.

There's no proof only allegations and assumption. Too early to jump conclusion.

Clearly someone made that up, for no reason.

You failed to read the article. The authors were looking to deepen their understanding and did not set out to study maternal or paternal age at conception. Rather, they wished to look into de-nova genetic mutations inherited by males and females over time. Their findings concerning the age at conception were unintended. No one said this was an open-and-shut case. However, I wonder if you would have taken this at face value had the maternal age at conception been in adolescents as opposed to young adulthood.

There was a Medieval British census I was reading the other day and the average woman had children at around 20-25. The idea of women marrying very young was only for the upper classes/elites.

That's interesting and consistent with these findings. I'll try to source the study for further details on the population(s) under study.

 

[Username]

Did women even have much of a choice back then? It's more like "men choosing to procreate with younger women"

 

[Angelina]

Did women even have much of a choice back then? It's more like "men choosing to procreate with younger women"

There wasn’t a big age gap. 23-25 yr old woman with a man in his late 20s and early 30s. @Sophisticate correct me if I’m wrong.

That isn’t the type of age gap that is usually painted such as teen bride with a 33 yr old husband.

An early to mid 20s bride and a late 20s/early 30s groom is normal for todays society. Such a couple are still technically the same generation.

 

[Danakiil]

A lot of those poor men didn't even get a chance to procreate. Sadly, there were more women that went on to reproduce than men.

You failed to read the article. The authors were looking to deepen their understanding and did not set out to study maternal or paternal age at conception. Rather, they wished to look into de-nova genetic mutations inherited by males and females over time. Their findings concerning the age at conception were unintended. No one said this was an open-and-shut case. However, I wonder if you would have taken this at face value had the maternal age at conception been in adolescents as opposed to young adulthood.

That's interesting and consistent with these findings. I'll try to source the study for further details on the population(s) under study.

What was the ratio between men & women who got to reproduce?

 

[Yaraye]

I know that most women like to go for older men but don't marry with a man who is 35 yrs olds or older. Men's sperm quality goes down by 35 years old. Don't put your child a risk to have childhood illness/ lifelong diseases. Make sure not have a child with a man older than 35 years. It's fine to go for older men, but if they are 33 or older, they past their time. It take time to be married, get pregnant, go through pregnancy, and give birth. How about if y'all been married for 1 year, and you're not pregnant? Or how about if you want to wait a little before having children? Can't do that with a man that is 33 or older....


Same goes for women. Their egg quality goes down at that age too, but most men don't go for women of that age any way that's why I don't really need to address the men.

P.S. I know that if allah wills, a child will have diseases anyway. but it doesn't hurt to decrease the risk and take precaution.

 

[Sophisticate]

There wasn’t a big age gap. 23-25 yr old woman with a man in his late 20s and early 30s. @Sophisticate correct me if I’m wrong.

That isn’t the type of age gap that is usually painted such as teen bride with a 33 yr old husband.

An early to mid 20s bride and a late 20s/early 30s groom is normal for todays society. Such a couple are still technically the same generation.

You are correct; the average age gap was seven years and has decreased to four years or less. However, the tacit assumption of a newly pubescent girl marrying a man double her age does not seem to be the case, at least according to these findings. Men often delay marriage/a union to accumulate enough resources to start a family. In my opinion, people seem to overstate how common very large age gaps were.

War and extreme poverty are enough to shift practices and norms regarding marriage and conception. Today, rural-dwelling and poor girls marry much earlier than urban-dwelling girls with more money. I doubt most of them want a marriage of convenience with an odey.

If you ever see the wedding photos, they look like they are attending a funeral when they marry an older man relative to the ladies marrying their peers (that are slightly older).

 

[Sophisticate]

I know that most women like to go for older men but don't marry with a man who is 35 yrs olds or older. Men's sperm quality goes down by 35 years old. Don't put your child a risk to have childhood illness/ lifelong diseases. Make sure not have a child with a man older than 35 years. It's fine to go for older men, but if they are 33 or older, they past their time. It take time to be married, get pregnant, go through pregnancy, and give birth. How about if y'all been married for 1 year, and you're not pregnant? Or how about if you want to wait a little before having children? Can't do that with a man that is 33 or older....


Same goes for women. Their egg quality goes down at that age too, but most men don't go for women of that age any way that's why I don't really need to address the men.

P.S. I know that if allah wills, a child will have diseases anyway. but it doesn't hurt to decrease the risk and take precaution.

Denova genetic mutations certainly accumulate as people age. Having children younger is more favourable. If you are in your early/mid-30s then my advice is to make some changes to improve both sperm and egg quality. That can be done through lifestyle changes, supplementation and detoxification. Your peak reproductive years are a good time to be physically active and eat well if you intend to delay childbearing.

Anything after 35 is considered advanced maternal age and thought to be higher risk. However, birth/pregnancy is highly medicalized and pathologized in allopathy. Independent of the actual health status of the woman which varies considerably even of the same age. Health clinicians think of worse possible scenarios, used drugs and are quick to progress to elective surgeries like C-sections. Also, the birth process is often rushed.

I'm of a different school of thought which is more fringe. I think it's the responsibility of both men and women to prepare in advance for having children especially if they are older. Preconception health matters and has sway over the health outcomes of children.

You can't do much for the accumulation of genetic mutations with time or a decrease in fertility but you can better your odds for the hand you are dealt. The only benefit to marrying older is you have greater resources in the case of both men and women. Also, older mothers tend to have children that perform higher academically partly owing to this. That along with commensurably more resources, education and hence the opportunity for greater parental investment. I don't see any other advantages outside of this.

My advice is to marry someone close in age. Large age gaps make relating more challenging. Leaving more room for misunderstandings and an imbalance in power dynamics. There are also differences in timeframes. You might not want children right away if you marry young while someone that marries older may feel compelled to reproduce quickly because they want to be a parent sooner.

What was the ratio between men & women who got to reproduce?

To be honest I cannot give you a precise figure. Just look at the mtDNA diversity relative to yDNA. It's staggering.

 

[Calaami]

These findings don’t bode well for us, I’m an old soul but a young man @Sophisticate

 

[Sophisticate]

These findings don’t bode well for us, I’m an old soul but a young man @Sophisticate

It's because you spend most of your time in the politics section.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Angelina]

You are correct; the average age gap was seven years and has decreased to four years or less. However, the tacit assumption of a newly pubescent girl marrying a man double her age does not seem to be the case, at least according to these findings. Men often delay marriage/a union to accumulate enough resources to start a family. In my opinion, people seem to overstate how common very large age gaps were.

Yep, they do. I was even reading a study about French marriage customs between the 1200s to the 1700s. Overwhelming, the brides were in their early to mid 20s and the groom whilst older, wasn’t significantly so. They were of the same generation.

War and extreme poverty are enough to shift practices and norms regarding marriage and conception. Today, rural-dwelling and poor girls marry much earlier than urban-dwelling girls with more money. I doubt most of them want a marriage of convenience with an odey.
View attachment 249127
If you ever see the wedding photos, they look like they are attending a funeral when they marry an older man relative to the ladies marrying their peers (that are slightly older).

The study I was reading also mentioned the exact same thing. Supposedly, younger marriages with much older grooms is a maker of poverty and instability. Humans tend to prefer to marry people within a similar age range and fathers even in societies in which arranged marriages are common, tend to prefer to marry their daughters to men who also young.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[NordicSomali]

There was a Medieval British census I was reading the other day and the average woman had children at around 20-25. The idea of women marrying very young was only for the upper classes/elites.

I’m pretty sure the poor married in their teens

 

[Danakiil]

Denova genetic mutations certainly accumulate as people age. Having children younger is more favourable. If you are in your early/mid-30s then my advice is to make some changes to improve both sperm and egg quality. That can be done through lifestyle changes, supplementation and detoxification. Your peak reproductive years are a good time to be physically active and eat well if you intend to delay childbearing.

Anything after 35 is considered advanced maternal age and thought to be higher risk. However, birth/pregnancy is highly medicalized and pathologized in allopathy. Independent of the actual health status of the woman which varies considerably even of the same age. Health clinicians think of worse possible scenarios, used drugs and are quick to progress to elective surgeries like C-sections. Also, the birth process is often rushed.

I'm of a different school of thought which is more fringe. I think it's the responsibility of both men and women to prepare in advance for having children especially if they are older. Preconception health matters and has sway over the health outcomes of children.

You can't do much for the accumulation of genetic mutations with time or a decrease in fertility but you can better your odds for the hand you are dealt. The only benefit to marrying older is you have greater resources in the case of both men and women. Also, older mothers tend to have children that perform higher academically partly owing to this. That along with commensurably more resources, education and hence the opportunity for greater parental investment. I don't see any other advantages outside of this.

My advice is to marry someone close in age. Large age gaps make relating more challenging. Leaving more room for misunderstandings and an imbalance in power dynamics. There are also differences in timeframes. You might not want children right away if you marry young while someone that marries older may feel compelled to reproduce quickly because they want to be a parent sooner.

To be honest I cannot give you a precise figure. Just look at the mtDNA diversity relative to yDNA. It's staggering.

The mTDNA vs yDNA diversify in somalis is cursed especially with certain Dir man's. All these diverse L3 M1 maternal Haplogroups for women than 100% T-M184 for men I've seen other ethic groups have a high percentage of a paternal Haplogroup but never to the extent that Dir men do wtf. Who ever founded that clan must've been in ‍

 

[jemappelle]

You failed to read the article. The authors were looking to deepen their understanding and did not set out to study maternal or paternal age at conception. Rather, they wished to look into de-nova genetic mutations inherited by males and females over time. Their findings concerning the age at conception were unintended. No one said this was an open-and-shut case. However, I wonder if you would have taken this at face value had the maternal age at conception been in adolescents as opposed to young adulthood.

I don't understand, how did they work out the average age for conception using genetics, also is their ambiguity in the findings or can we say the findings they found are close to the true representation of what it was like

 

[jemappelle]

Also how did they work out the average? what kind of distrubution did they use, do they have the datasets they used, I would like to see what kind of range of ages they had, for example it could be that 25% of age of conception was teenage years then another in 20s then another in late 20s then another in 30s.

 

[NinkiYar]

The main conclusion - women have always chosen to procreate with older men (which isn't surprising). Though I am surprised the average age of conception was much higher than I anticipated for women. So I guess archaic humans didn't chase teenagers.

Study reveals average age at conception for men versus women over past 250,000 years

Using a new method based upon comparing DNA mutation rates between parents and offspring, evolutionary biologists have revealed the average age of mothers versus fathers over the past 250,000 years, including the discovery that the age gap is shrinking, with women's average age at conception...

www.sciencedaily.com

Yes, it could be much lower because Infant death was high back then

So we are only getting lineages from people who survived