Study reveals average age at conception for men versus women over past 250,000 years
- Thread starter Sophisticate
- Start date
isn't it amazing? Those days women started having babies when they were babies themelves--around the age of 9-12
The high number of children is to offset nature- which guarantees the odds of having children grow up to adulthood since there were many diseases. But what if thru the miracle of God the entire 20 children survived? Likely not tho--very very rare.
So in essence mans evolution is no different from chicklets from hen where she starts with 20 chicklet- and the only half of that survives to a full grown chicken lol
Last edited:
Evidence?
No, that is false. You didn’t read what I said. Multiple studies said otherwise. Also, it was only aristocratic girls that married real early and even then, they would not be having babies at 9. That was seen as far too early even for the elites that would marry their girls off to early. Example, you have Margaret Beaufort, the grandmother of King Henry the 8th, she had a baby at 12-13. That was seen as weird at the time as it caused major complications for her and was then never able to have children again. Medieval sources blame her very young conception for why. Usually girls would be married off at that age but will have their first child at 15. For the middle/lower classes, they would have their first child at 20-25.
If the average life span was longer, like let’s say 120 years, then is it safe to assume that people back then entered puberty in their 20s?
I believe Prophets define the life span of their Ummah, eg Muhammad pbuh lived for 63 years, that has been our average lifespan in the last 1400 years.
Nabi Musa as lived for 125 years 3500 years ago, Nabi Ibrahim lived for 1200 years over 250k years ago.
That's quite true. I heard that even in the cases of girls that married young many of them did not produce children until their 20s. It's also important to factor in that age at first menarche was probably in the later teens due to poor nutrition status and lower body size and composition. Nutrition was also much poorer in the peasant vs. noble classes. In addition, perhaps a husband would have pushed age at first conception to give the woman a better chance at survival during childbirth. As for men, it was irresponsible to marry before they could provide so it's no surprise why they would delay marriage. This was the case with Somalis too. A man with no xoolo was never suitable for marriage. Some older Somali customs involved men delaying marriage for this reason and being forced to pay a sizeable bride price (particularly if he wanted a beautiful woman). There may have been disruptions in this practice though.
Global trends show an increase in both ages of first marriage and the age at first conception. Holding even for low- and middle-income countries with a higher proportion of adolescent marriages. If we look at the average age at first marriage for women in Horn of African countries, Djibouti is the highest at 26.9, followed by Ethiopia at 21.3, with Eritrea and Somalia at around 20.6. Djibouti's age at first marriage rivals that of MENA countries like Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. Numbers are much lower for first marriages in some parts of Western and Middle Africa, especially in Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, Congo, and Benin.
I will say that Somalia does have a higher proportion of adolescent marriages and births, amounting to one-third of marriages; there is also no mandated legal minimum for marital age. Early adolescent births before 16 years are more concentrated in poorer, rural communities. Early marriage is also associated with low educational attainment, birth complications such as maternal and infant mortality, risk of child malnutrition and, as you pointed out, the perpetuation of a cycle of poverty.
Also, plenty of girls that marry in adolescents often do so due to extreme financial need and often come from poorer, less educated and dispossessed communities (ex/ poor rural dwellers that move into urban centres). In countries such as Niger, there has been an increase in early adolescent marriages owing to conflict and instability. While in parts of Northeast Africa, severe drought also increases the risk of girls dropping out of school and entering into forced marriages where the age disparity between spouses is great (i.e. several times a girl's age). I am not even sure people are aware that they are contributing to the stifling of their nation's economic growth when they advocate for adolescent marriages.
A case could be made that perhaps a segment of teens that marry young do so of their own volition and have enough agency to make this decision. However, there are cases of elopement that occur in Somali/a/land. These sorts of marriages are not with significantly older men but with boys within their age range whom they met through school or social media. These are likely love-based marriages rather than ones of necessity. Drivers of these marriages are due to peer influence, a reduction in parental influence in marital decision-making, poverty, limited economic opportunities, social media influences, and wishing to preserve honour by avoiding Zina. Despite this, many Somali parents in Somaliland and Puntland are resistant to elopement and see it as rushed, wishing for their children to complete their studies and forgo marriage until their 20s.
Furthermore, in the case of early marriage, where the spouse is significantly older, there is an increased likelihood of domestic and sexual violence and a lifetime of poverty. Possibly contributing to cases of a steady crop of young divorcees abandoned by their husbands that are worse off when attempting to remarry.
I will say that Somalia does have a higher proportion of adolescent marriages and births, amounting to one-third of marriages; there is also no mandated legal minimum for marital age. Early adolescent births before 16 years are more concentrated in poorer, rural communities. Early marriage is also associated with low educational attainment, birth complications such as maternal and infant mortality, risk of child malnutrition and, as you pointed out, the perpetuation of a cycle of poverty.
Also, plenty of girls that marry in adolescents often do so due to extreme financial need and often come from poorer, less educated and dispossessed communities (ex/ poor rural dwellers that move into urban centres). In countries such as Niger, there has been an increase in early adolescent marriages owing to conflict and instability. While in parts of Northeast Africa, severe drought also increases the risk of girls dropping out of school and entering into forced marriages where the age disparity between spouses is great (i.e. several times a girl's age). I am not even sure people are aware that they are contributing to the stifling of their nation's economic growth when they advocate for adolescent marriages.
A case could be made that perhaps a segment of teens that marry young do so of their own volition and have enough agency to make this decision. However, there are cases of elopement that occur in Somali/a/land. These sorts of marriages are not with significantly older men but with boys within their age range whom they met through school or social media. These are likely love-based marriages rather than ones of necessity. Drivers of these marriages are due to peer influence, a reduction in parental influence in marital decision-making, poverty, limited economic opportunities, social media influences, and wishing to preserve honour by avoiding Zina. Despite this, many Somali parents in Somaliland and Puntland are resistant to elopement and see it as rushed, wishing for their children to complete their studies and forgo marriage until their 20s.
Furthermore, in the case of early marriage, where the spouse is significantly older, there is an increased likelihood of domestic and sexual violence and a lifetime of poverty. Possibly contributing to cases of a steady crop of young divorcees abandoned by their husbands that are worse off when attempting to remarry.
That is interesting. Parents are not as pleased when the age gap is too large unless the man in question is an outlier or exception. He has to overcompensate with better characteristics than her age peers, like one or more of the following: being better looking, more intelligent, kinder, more pious/religious or wealthier.
According to data/records on Medieval Europe which were predominately kept on noble classes. They had the opportunity to marry sooner as they had more wealth. This group cannot be used to generalize to the majority peasant class.
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 menI'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
I'll post the original study and you can do a deeper dive into their methodology and models used. From what I have read they tapped into genomic population data from the 1000 genome project. With any study, results are always to be interpreted with caution.
Infant mortality was high, and puberty was likely later in onset. Given that birth, complications were worse for younger brides some may have favoured waiting for sexual maturation/physical development into early adulthood. That's also another theory.
Average life span was shorter
Are you saying in the past people only started having sex around the age of 23?
Probably or maybe a little bit earlier. I’ve seen various census’s of Europeans in the medieval period and the average middle class/peasant would marry around that age. There was no incentive for them to marry earlier and their nutrition wasn’t that great which meant they had later periods. It might have been different in Eastern countries.
Furthermore, Aristocratic girls did get married early, sometimes they’d be married off at like 12, but they would consummate their marriages much later at around 16/17. We know this due to consensus and various sources about the life of prominent women like Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII of England. Example, she gave birth to him when she was 13. She had a very messy a complicated birth which caused her subsequent infertility. This can most definitely happen if women get pregnant very early and contemporary sources from that time period blame her early birth and say it is unusual she was married off that young, also it wasn’t her father but an unlike and people from that time period were of the opinion that if it was her parents that gave her she wouldn’t have
The alchemist
VIP
Don't you think these sweeping statistical generalizations are computationally intensive to form non-sensitive smoothing?
The problem is, at certain times, the frequency at which mutation rates recombine can change rapidly compared to other times (non-steady molecular clock in certain area as opposed to others, some kind of novel region spesific mutational mechanism). We're getting an average. It doesn't state much about the dimensional variation in each generation. Is it slow mutation rate intervals or higher age of conception 50,000 years ago? I can't even affirm if they aren't mutually exclusive to any given period.
I think the wide range of parameters in the confidence intervals really tells how, although they claim they have a low error, it's because it spans a wide range of upper and lower bound vertical sets. Understanding the approach for averaging as it is the logical step from a calculative modelling where units can't individually be accounted for, it can at the same time mask considerable dynamics. So it is, in a way, a self-checking parsimonious approach yet not necessarily the best, but at least controlled, so the error is not the worst given the generalization. However, the generalization is still a generalization, and a local regression will not show the complex data we really want. I see they tried to constrict it as explained by supplementary data S3.1, but the issue kind of persist.
People have to understand that there are weaknesses in such studies. They might say they lack a big error rate but that's because they constrained the data, so it makes sense for academics to dwell from a technical side on these things while it makes less sense to talk of it in casual settings making interpretive stances as always happens when the non-specialized person project their biases on top of what is being portrayed. I understand to some degree, since those eggheads are too eager to sell their ideas. These types of studies come out all the time (meaning dealing with things in great time-depth, I often find interesting stuff laying inference upon time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates) using tons of convoluted sophisticated computational- and stabilizing filtration methodologies. Those studies are not always correct and you can sometimes struggle to interpret because given the complexity it might not even be wrong but say something different, with the researchers also seeming to having a lackluster level of interpretation of it for various reasons.
A year ago or two, there was a peer-reviewed paper published saying ridiculously false thing like West Africans can have as up to 19% archaic retrogression. When we know it is around ~2% with perhaps a bit more, but likely less too. That shit paper might have not differentiated ghost modern with other stuff, who knows but it is ambiguous the reason why the parameters were so ridiculous you almost have to question how in the world it passed peer-review checking. I guess the scientist that inspected were impressed by the modelling schemes since they were highly cross-computed using novel ways without being critical of the quality of the outcomes themselves. Sure we can integrate those models in a more effective way in the future, I think it can be promising like some others I have read about ancient back migrations (which to a great degree muddles things also), you still got to know what you are doing and use common sense, not let the process guide you to the degree where you trust the outcome to be good. Anyway, I think it was those computer scientists that were flashy with the machinery without having an ounce of intuition for what they were processing for.
Not seeking to debate or anything, since I don't care enough to study this deeply. Think of it as my two cents or something in that ballpark, lol.
The problem is, at certain times, the frequency at which mutation rates recombine can change rapidly compared to other times (non-steady molecular clock in certain area as opposed to others, some kind of novel region spesific mutational mechanism). We're getting an average. It doesn't state much about the dimensional variation in each generation. Is it slow mutation rate intervals or higher age of conception 50,000 years ago? I can't even affirm if they aren't mutually exclusive to any given period.
I think the wide range of parameters in the confidence intervals really tells how, although they claim they have a low error, it's because it spans a wide range of upper and lower bound vertical sets. Understanding the approach for averaging as it is the logical step from a calculative modelling where units can't individually be accounted for, it can at the same time mask considerable dynamics. So it is, in a way, a self-checking parsimonious approach yet not necessarily the best, but at least controlled, so the error is not the worst given the generalization. However, the generalization is still a generalization, and a local regression will not show the complex data we really want. I see they tried to constrict it as explained by supplementary data S3.1, but the issue kind of persist.
People have to understand that there are weaknesses in such studies. They might say they lack a big error rate but that's because they constrained the data, so it makes sense for academics to dwell from a technical side on these things while it makes less sense to talk of it in casual settings making interpretive stances as always happens when the non-specialized person project their biases on top of what is being portrayed. I understand to some degree, since those eggheads are too eager to sell their ideas. These types of studies come out all the time (meaning dealing with things in great time-depth, I often find interesting stuff laying inference upon time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates) using tons of convoluted sophisticated computational- and stabilizing filtration methodologies. Those studies are not always correct and you can sometimes struggle to interpret because given the complexity it might not even be wrong but say something different, with the researchers also seeming to having a lackluster level of interpretation of it for various reasons.
A year ago or two, there was a peer-reviewed paper published saying ridiculously false thing like West Africans can have as up to 19% archaic retrogression. When we know it is around ~2% with perhaps a bit more, but likely less too. That shit paper might have not differentiated ghost modern with other stuff, who knows but it is ambiguous the reason why the parameters were so ridiculous you almost have to question how in the world it passed peer-review checking. I guess the scientist that inspected were impressed by the modelling schemes since they were highly cross-computed using novel ways without being critical of the quality of the outcomes themselves. Sure we can integrate those models in a more effective way in the future, I think it can be promising like some others I have read about ancient back migrations (which to a great degree muddles things also), you still got to know what you are doing and use common sense, not let the process guide you to the degree where you trust the outcome to be good. Anyway, I think it was those computer scientists that were flashy with the machinery without having an ounce of intuition for what they were processing for.
Not seeking to debate or anything, since I don't care enough to study this deeply. Think of it as my two cents or something in that ballpark, lol.
I wanna see the data on number of women who gave vbirth at different ages
Also I don't believe that people only started having sex at age 23, maybe marriage, but not sex
Yh alot of these studies aren't transparent on the data used, how the use the data, how they calculate the average, also other factors which effect this.
