Reply to comment

I found a very interesting article on NewYorkTimes.com about worries about male fertility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27sper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=science&pagewanted=print

Basically this article warns men that they should be wary of their biological clocks as well. While advanced maternal age is accepted (obviously women can't have kids after a certain age, MENOPAUSE, people!), some are skeptical about advanced paternal age...but "until now, the problems known to occur more often with advanced paternal age were so rare they received scant public attention. The newer studies were alarming because they found higher rates of more common conditions — including autism and schizophrenia — in offspring born to men in their middle and late 40s. Over all, having an older father is estimated to increase the risk of a birth defect by 1 percent, against a background 3 percent risk for a birth defect. A number of studies also suggest that male fertility may diminish with age."

The thing is many people do keep their fertility, and the date is very sparse.

I just don't understand why people are surprised about this though, males in particular -- sperm cells DO age too, ya know. As these cells age, there is an increased frequency in new mutations. YAY! Evolutionary biology -- I am not at all surprised about the aging sperm cells, but I am very intrigued that when the cells age, they are at a higher risk for mutation. Does that explain why elderly people are more susceptible to illness? I guess this (genetic mutation) is the keystone for cancer at an elderly age as well? We do things "less well" the longer we travel down the aging path. In this article's case, men's "factories" break down and cannot produce sperm as well.

...Men, be scared...