Men lose Y-chromosome with age

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160523212527.htm
That’s why they die earlier.

Really.
Stop blaming women and ‘sexism’, we aren’t omnipotent gene meddlers.
Also, genetic proof of a male wall. LOL. An explanation to why so many middle-aged men suddenly look like lesbians.

[coughs in Bruce Jenner]

And there’s no way to reverse it, before the snake oil salesmen jump up with a solution that, if it worked, would make them a billionaire.

Nobel winner.

World famous.

Popping pills to get out of laziness is what lefties do.

Bold for the lazy.

Using new tools to analyze genetic variations that accumulate with age, we can help explain how sporadic diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s manifest,” says first author Jan Dumanski.

One such postzygotic mutation found in the cells of biological males is the loss of the Y chromosome in a degree of blood cells. Loss of Y occurs in up to 17 percent of men and is more likely to be found in older men and men who smoke. This study expands on the idea that loss of Y, already a known risk factor for cancer (10.1038/ng.2966), could be a predictive biomarker for a wider range of poor health outcomes, specifically Alzheimer’s. Why loss of Y can be linked to an increased risk for disease remains unclear, but the authors speculate it has to do with reduced immune system performance.

They should look at age groups of men.

And diet.

IMHO.

The researchers looked at over 3,000 men to ascertain whether there was any predictive association between loss of Y in blood cells and Alzheimer’s disease. The participants came from three long-term studies that could provide regular blood samples: the European Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative, the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men, and the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors. Across the datasets, those with the highest fraction of blood cells without a Y chromosome were consistently more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

….Really more of an outcome of poor genetic health….

Did you test for aluminium?

Attempt chelation therapy?

Yeah, fuck the easy solution, blame the Y chromosome.

Like women don’t get it.

“Having loss of Y is not 100 percent predictive that you will have either cancer or Alzheimer’s,” Forsberg says, adding that there were men in the study who had the mutation and lived with no symptoms well into their 90s.

Were their fathers older or younger?

If paternal age is a factor in ANYTHING, it’s a risk factor for this.

Male chromosome plus mutation. Come on.

Men think they can fool women but white hairs on a ballsack don’t lie.

“But in the future, loss of Y in blood cells can become a new biomarker for disease risk and perhaps evaluation can make a difference in detecting and treating problems early.”

No shit.

Forsberg, Dumanski, and colleagues will next investigate the effect of loss of Y in larger cohorts and explore in greater detail how it confers risk for specific types of cancers and disease. They also plan to look at the cellular changes caused by loss of Y and how it affects different types of blood cells.The researchers looked at over 3,000 men to ascertain whether there was any predictive association between loss of Y in blood cells and Alzheimer’s disease. The participants came from three long-term studies that could provide regular blood samples: the European Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative, the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men, and the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors. Across the datasets, those with the highest fraction of blood cells without a Y chromosome were consistently more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.”

Should look at heart disease, primary killer of American males.

But that’s none of my business.

If men aged well, they wouldn’t need to be on supplements.
Young men on supplements is just sad, like young women getting plastic surgery.
There’s no room to move. If you can’t be all that young, what are they going to do?
Our society treats aging like cancer, it’s ridiculous Boomer youth cult propaganda to sell them supplements like detox tea and testosterone ball rub. You can’t fool mother nature.

When they actually hit middle-age, they won’t be able to keep up with that crap anyway.
Imagine most of your shallow friends disappearing because you dropped the massive timesink of gym addiction.
The Ken Doll homoerotic gym attention bros look sad after about 40.

Plus bodybuilder types know there are two types of muscle: appearance and strength.
Guess which one they all go for?

The one that instantly converts to stubborn fat if they so much as look at a complex carbohydrate past 30.

The Johnny Bravo look is actually, industry secret, physically weak.

In a fight, any martial artist will tell you the bulk limits their range of motion like a fatty anyway.

All men need is a healthy range of light muscle, which women prefer but don’t require any supplement sales.
Light muscle also provides cognitive benefits with no musculoskeletal downsides, including sag and joint pain.
Bruce Lee could take a Henry Cavill any day of the week.

With the T&A they have a woman’s hourglass in profile, they gay.

At least, appealing to that market…..

What makes a species classification?

Assuming you’ve read previous links about mixed race fertility issues and health problems.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-species.html

“Most evolutionary biologists distinguish one species from another based on reproductivity: members of different species either won’t* or can’t mate with one another, or, if they do, the resulting offspring are often sterile, unviable, or suffer some other sort of reduced fitness.
In a new paper published in the journal eLife, the researchers show that sex chromosomes evolve to be genetically incompatible between species faster than the rest of the genetic chromosomes and reveal the factors at play in this incompatibility.

*White women are a different species?

True.

So sexual repulsion is part of species classification.

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-sex-evolve-prof-laurence-hurst.html

“This variation is manifested at the genetic level: sex generates some organisms within the species with lots of harmful mutations and some with relatively few. Supporters of the so-called mutational deterministic theory argue that if organisms with many mutations have disproportionately low survival chances, many bad mutations tend to die out with their hosts, generating a large number of organisms that are free from such mutations.”

“This sort of evolutionary game of cat and mouse is known as Red Queen evolution, from the character in Alice in Wonderland who insisted that one must run just to stay in the same place. Indeed, genes related to immunity are some of the fastest evolving we have. There is also recent evidence that species can increase the amount of genetic mixing they do when they sense that they are infected with a parasite. This means their offspring will be even more different from one another and their parents.”

Hard times make strong men.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-human-evolution-possibly-faster.html

“But neutral evolution can’t explain why some genes are evolving much faster than others. We measure the speed of gene evolution by comparing human DNA with that of other species, which also allows us to determine which genes are fast-evolving in humans alone. One fast-evolving gene is human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), which is needed during brain development. A random section of human DNA is on average more than 98% identical to the chimp comparator, but HAR1 is so fast evolving that it’s only around 85% similar.

Though scientists can see these changes are happening – and how quickly – we still don’t fully understand why fast evolution happens to some genes but not others. Originally thought to be the result of natural selection exclusively, we now know this isn’t always true.”

“The human mutation rate itself may also be changing. The main source of mutations in human DNA is the cell division process that creates sperm cells. The older males get, the more mutations occur in their sperm. So if their contribution to the gene pool changes – for example, if men delay having children – the mutation rate will change too. This sets the rate of neutral evolution.”

I have covered paternal age before. Few times.

Men delaying fatherhood is killing the West more than low birth rates. Having a few sprogs when you’re older only works if they’re higher quality than you could’ve had earlier.

Although obviously the birth rate CANNOT rise without marriage rates rising first.

https://www.livescience.com/609-hundreds-human-genes-evolving.html

“This study addresses the question ‘Are humans still evolving?’, and the answer is ‘Absolutely,'” study team member Benjamin Voight”

“The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight.”

or it could be like domesticating foxes and be a visible side effect of lower criminal aggression, more civilization?
just test albinos in non-white groups

“And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can’t metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit.”

naturalistic fallacy, mutations can hold you back too

for example, if being able to produce it made you more prone to alcoholism, a disadvantage

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031124612.htm

“Only a few genetic changes are needed to spur the evolution of new species—even if the original populations are still in contact and exchanging genes.

Multiculturalism isn’t the risk you think it is.

[The risk to democracy, however….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827122410.htm ]

Once started, however, evolutionary divergence evolves rapidly, ultimately leading to fully genetically isolated species, report scientists.”

“”Our work suggests that a few advantageous mutations are enough to cause a ‘tug-of-war’ between natural selection and gene flow, which can lead to rapidly diverging genomes,” Kronforst said.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm

“A study of diverse African groups by geneticists has identified new genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation. The findings help explain the vast range of skin color on the African continent, shed light on human evolution and inform an understanding of the genetic risk factors for conditions such as skin cancer.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180711114544.htm

The one tribe in Africa thing was always a myth.

https://www.livescience.com/445-darwin-natural-selection-work-humans.html

“The findings suggest that about 9 percent of the human genes examined are undergoing rapid evolution.

“Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome,” said Carlos Bustamante, a biologist at Cornell University.

A separate study announced last month indicated the human brain is still evolving, too.

Compared to chimps …”

If there’s reproduction, there’s evolution.

BC mutation.

Another 13 percent of the genes examined in the study showed evidence for negative selection, whereby harmful mutations are weeded out of the population. These included some genes implicated in hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and Usher syndrome. The latter is the most common cause of congenital blindness and deafness in developed countries.

Medical geneticists are interested in finding genes sensitive to negative selection because they might one day be useful for predicting an individual’s likelihood of developing a disease if the types of mutation to a gene and the environmental conditions are known.

Being able to determine which classes of genes are particularly vulnerable to negative selections is a first step, Bustamante said.”

Negative selection.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821124835.htm

“A newly-discovered species of ant supports a controversial theory of species formation. The ant, only found in a single patch of eucalyptus trees on the São Paulo State University campus in Brazil, branched off from its original species while living in the same colony, something thought rare in current models of evolutionary development.

Nope!

“Most new species come about in geographic isolation,” said Christian Rabeling, assistant professor of biology at the University of Rochester. “We now have evidence that speciation can take place within a single colony.”

The findings by Rabeling and the research team were published today in the journal Current Biology.”

B-b-b-but…

Where’s the evidence?

Pot smokers have sicklier babies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458631
“If men smoked marijuana 11 to 90 times in their lifetime, there was a 15% decrease in infant birth weight (P = .03); if this increased to more than 90 times, there was a 23% decrease (P = .01). Timing also played a role.”
“Women and men who smoked in the past 15 years, had 12% (P = .04) and 16% (P = .03) smaller infants, respectively.”

This is why ((they)) want to legalize.

Such a change in one generation is huge news.

Related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15343228

Paternal age increases pregnancy failure and miscarriage rate in IVF

How long can they deny HBD?

Waiting to be a father is irresponsible, imagine my shock.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/31/babies-born-to-older-fathers-tend-to-have-more-medical-issues

“The records showed that children born to men aged 45 and over had a 14% greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight and being admitted to neonatal intensive care compared with babies born to younger fathers.”

Geriatric fathers, yes.
If you’re past middle-age (36-7 in men) and old enough to be a grandfather.

Infants born to men aged 45 and over also scored lower on the Apgar newborn health test, and were 18% more likely to have seizures compared with infants born to fathers aged 25 to 34 years, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.

Why not state all the findings, including compared with <25?

Boomer readership, that’s why. 60 is the new 40 though, sure.

For women, the risk of gestational diabetes was greater when they had children with older men.”

Paternal age as a medical risk factor is long known, I’ve posted on it.

Their study.

http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4372

“This is something else to take into consideration,” he said. “There are potential risks with waiting. Men should not think that they have an unlimited runway.”

Why isn’t male fertility and issues like impotence mentioned in biology class? Men deserve to know, it’s important life planning. Modern men don’t realise their fertility is dropping steeply until they eventually go to conceive or get a random sperm count for other reasons.

I’d go so far as to call it a public health issue.

They are not fully informed, the information is withheld from them. Where’s the full consent for that wait, if they don’t understand what it might entail?

Obviously the man commenting on the study tries to downplay it but other studies I’ve posted didn’t find mild differences, in some cases extreme (such as psychiatric risk) and that’s without looking at whether the child is mixed-race, that includes the risk even further. Good luck getting that published.

“increases in health risks might have across populations as paternal age continues to rise.”

If it’s a risk across a population, it is also a risk for the individuals within it, showing up his earlier weasel words about ‘individuals’ to be a lie. You don’t have medical complications as a population, it’s personal.

“When I talk to couples about health risks, I use the lottery as an analogy,”

You use a con about people who can’t do maths to… lie to people who can’t do maths.

“Even if your risk for something goes up 10-20%, the absolute risk for an individual

doesn’t change

At all?

that much.”

Hear that gentlemen?


Who gives a shit about your individual risk going up by 20%? Not this guy! He’d rather not offend you but let you slowly become infertile because, by the time you figure it out, you’ll be powerless to do anything about it. White men need to have fewer children, as other Guardian articles have informed us.

You aren’t entitled to oppressive white male fertility.

The researchers calculating risk across the field (here a part of gerontology) know more maths than the doctors downplaying it.

“Eisenberg and his colleagues suggest changes in the DNA of older men’s sperm might explain their findings.”

Berg-berg-berg-berg et al.

“The concern is backed up by previous work, including a Harvard study last year that found births through IVF fell as the fathers’ age increased.”

Duh.

IVF isn’t magic.

“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,” she writes, adding that all are linked to health problems in newborns.”

Sub-fertility, which many clueless men have and they don’t care to warn you about.

It’s almost like men evolved to have children while they were healthier.

From the BMJ article itself:

“Though the effects of advanced maternal age on perinatal outcomes have been extensively studied,

can’t blame women, credits on that excuse are maxed out

research on the impact of older fathers on the health of offspring has been limited mostly to the risk of congenital disease.345678

we’re scared of offending old guys with money

The high number of male germ cell divisions in aging fathers has been proposed to increase the risk of autism, genetic abnormalities, psychiatric morbidity, and neoplasia in offspring, but recent studies have also suggested a potential paternal effect on perinatal morbidity.691011121314

I didn’t call my article Old fathers, sick babies for nothing.
Can’t get sicker than dead or disabled.

This passes down the germline so one bad breeding decision will affect all their offspring’s fitness too (I think the children will eventually sue for epigenetic damages, on poor lifestyle choices prior to conception as well).

I’ve love to see a study comparing older fathers with younger and recording sexual history (partners and diseases) because you know that has an effect. A medical effect. They’re too chickenshit to do it (and record the same in women but paternal factors into their sperm donation are more likely modified by those behavioural factors, his baby-making factory is the testes area so its prior health and the delivery vehicle’s are especially important).

One common explanation arises from the epigenetic changes that occur within spermatocytes; specifically modifications to histone and DNA methylation in spermatozoa of older men. These alterations occur in regions of the genome that are responsible for several diseases in offspring.15 Disruption of histone methylation in developing male germ cells might be a precursor to aberrant embryonic and placental development, with studies suggesting that paternal imprinting of aging could affect both fetal growth and maternal health during pregnancy.”

Degenerate DNA gets so offended when people stop filtering about it.

No prizes why they didn’t quote this part.

I wonder if their boys (because paternal factors would be stronger to another male) are more or less effeminate than the average? Again, they don’t dare do that study.

Paternal imprinting, that’s a nice word for degeneration on a genetic level.

At least they’re acknowledging men age, I suppose.

Looking at non-Guardian approved science:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-documents-paternal-transmission-epigenetic-memory.html

“Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father’s experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.”

I’m guessing the sperm.

….

Just a random, wild guess.

“Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.

For many years, it was thought that sperm do not retain any histone packaging and therefore could not transmit histone-based epigenetic information to offspring. Recent studies, however, have shown that about 10 percent of histone packaging is retained in both human and mouse sperm.”

So …more lying to men.
Get obese, it’s fine! Drink like a fish! Your kids will be fine!

Our ancestors never knew that vice… had a price.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/14-18.htm

They didn’t have iPhones, we’re so much wiser than them.

“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.‘”

What does that even mean? Nature can’t see what you’re doing.

Trust the “experts” who profiteer from fertility treatments and hate white men!

“”Furthermore, where the chromosomes retain histone packaging of DNA is in developmentally important regions, so those findings raised awareness of the possibility that sperm may transmit important epigenetic information to embryos,” Strome said.”

Wait, could rednecks be even smarter if they drank less?

Was Prohibition, pro-white?

“These findings show that the DNA packaging in sperm is important, because offspring that did not inherit normal sperm epigenetic marks were sterile, and it is sufficient for normal germline development,” Strome said.”

Money shot?

Sinner father, no grandchildren?

That is a divinely calculated revenge, all their paternal investment wasted.

Detour:

https://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/childlessness-and-bible-2-defective.html

“The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one”

LOL

“While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity,”

louder for cucks at the back

“childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage”

But God is punishing them, going around that in favour of dysgenic reproduction is a sin.

Women could divorce infertile or impotent men under the Catholic church, it was so important.

“The goal is to analyze how the chromatin packaging changes in the parent,” she said. “Whatever gets passed on to the offspring has to go through the germ cells. We want to know which cells experience the environmental factors, how they transmit that information to the germ cells, what changes in the germ cells, and how that impacts the offspring.”

I doubt it’s for the greater good.

Could addiction be genetic?

Lawyers are celebrating just thinking of it.

By demonstrating the importance of epigenetic information carried by sperm, the current study establishes that if the environment experienced by the father changes the epigenetics of sperm chromosomes, it could affect the offspring.”

Could?

A few others, while I’m here.

Your genes affect your nose shape.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11616

Ya gotta have chutzpah to believe the science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/scientists-discover-dozens-of-new-genes-for-hair-colour

“The colour of a person’s hair is one of the most heritable features of their appearance, with studies on twins suggesting that genetics explains up to 97% of hair colour.”

Race explains 100%. Subrace especially.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0100-5

They’re right that hair colour isn’t a matter of sexual preference …but race is.

““Pigments are far more than just cosmetic – they are important for the immune system and play a role in many diseases,” said Spector. “Understanding the genetics could lead to new therapies.”

They tried that with African heart medication, it was taken off the label.

They’d rather let black men keel over and die than admit they’re genetically different.

K-shift in mice:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/13/scientists-discover-brains-neural-switch-for-becoming-an-alpha-male

“Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.”

So you see, they can’t let men grow up. There’d be no politically useful regression then.
Buy stock in pajamas.
They can knock out that part of the brain too. They don’t mention this. This makes me suspicious.

“The findings, they suggest, could have applications in understanding a variety of psychiatric conditions where people exhibit overly dominant behaviours, or lack motivation to compete socially.”

Psychopathy and depression (or r-selection, as a trait).
Psychopaths are immune to depression. What makes others sad, makes them mad.
The study itself has nothing to do with “alpha” as Americans consider it, an alpha is never single in biology but part of a breeding pair.

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/08/23/no-more-alpha-male/

The study is really about psychopathy in the extreme form (genetic engineering, useful for the military) and social dominance in prosocial, milder forms (K) which cannot be undone (even in GE mice) as a natural maturation process. Its absence of activation (say, from the amygala circuits) could explain effete males. Again, they gloss over that.

I noticed.

Genes influence subject choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/16/a-level-subject-choice-is-strongly-influenced-by-genes-scientists-say

Not IQ?
Isn’t that a huge confound that should be studied?
And why force children to study languages then? Isn’t that oppression when they could study something else?

“Birney warns that the findings do not imply that it is possible to predict a student’s subject choice, or achievement, from their genome.”

trans. Don’t look in the race box, please, don’t look in the race box. I don’t want to get the sack.

“As schooling and other factors vary greatly from person to person it is unlikely that genetics is the dominant factor in A-level choice.”

The likelihood was calculated.

“The scientists found that this was indeed the case, with 50-80% of subject choice down to genetic influences.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/genes-influence-academic-ability-across-all-subjects-latest-study-shows

Academic ability …. not IQ?

How is GPA not a reliable proxy for IQ, on that point?

GPA is basically just the PC term for IQ. Mathematically.

Atheists are the runts

You couldn’t tell by bone structure? The men are almost pigeon-chested with women’s shoulders an Austen character would be proud of.

http://www.unz.com/article/are-atheists-genetic-mutants-a-product-of-recent-evolution/

New mutations crop up all the time and the genes don’t survive.

It’s kinda like the SJW claim that sexes don’t exist because hermaphrodites do.

Er, mutants exist. They are aberrations. Ironically, they’re seeking meaning like Jesus in toast.

But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind.

Really?

Really?

This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Why would nature waste resources better spent on the children likeliest to breed?

This is literally Darwin.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality.

It’s no coincidence many atheists are psychopathically broken enough to reject the concept of objective morality, moral absolutes (unless it applies to their opponent, to weaken them). In a small tribe, they’d have been kicked out by the elders at the first sign of criminality and deception to starve. The anti-weasel reflex is still present in us, it makes us get off a bus early when an unstable person gets on or avoid the creepily attentive boy who offers to buy us a drink to spike.

Your instincts keep you alive better than a lazy police force.
Antisocial people hate instincts because it thwarts their lies.

Ask yourself, why did men in all great societies have to leave the home, live alone,  prove themselves and follow the law to be worthy of respect? We coddle teenagers and hence we have a society of weak men. They complain about this yet never volunteer to do what needs to be done, a sign of their weakness, it begins with the moral.

If you’re so different from women, ya gotta act like it.

Sitting around complaining among the women is what the gay guys do. Not attractive. How many mistake this vanity for intellect?

Mixed schools were a sign of the mistake. When little girls exercise like little boys, their brains are masculinized. How many pro-Patriarchy guys would prefer a male-only school? Vanishingly few. They’re full of shit. They want all the imagined rewards with none of the effort. But sex-exclusive schools get better grades, with less distraction, as do religion-specific and race-specific ones.

Without morality, there is no reputation. Without reputation, there is no honour and no culture.

Hypocrites who refuse to lead by example because *valley girl voice* It’s HAAAARD.

This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

Genophilia is evolutionally fit, no shit.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

Ask an atheist if he has asthma. That one condition.

They’re lazy moral Marxists. “I can take what I want because I can find an excuse”. It’s a child’s mindset begging their parents for a toy or to “let them get away” with eating a cookie before dinner. They feel the world (and any God) owes them personally, entitlement is the mindset of weakness.

They earn nothing. They get nothing. That is just.

Their failure is a sign the system works. It’s like the “incels” who refuse to develop an adult personality but demand AA for orgasms. Redistribution of hotties and thotties. They’re just fucking marxists. Literally.
“Rejection should be illegal” people. Utterly brittle personalities, sheltered.

There is no right to another person’s body, and this coming from self-proclaimed libertarians? How many hands do they have? Take matters into your own hands.

They think women don’t suffer (aren’t fully human) or that suffering is rare, new and some personal outrage. You can’t argue with reality.
Who wants to sleep with a kid in a grown man’s body?

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

dysgenic, the word you need to use

Pollutants in food, water, air, clothing, medications (neurotoxic) and unprecedented interactions with foreign microbiomes throwing the native ones off cause a hefty amount too. Then there are easily remedied things like non-Indians eating a diet they didn’t evolve for and wondering why gastro issues are through the roof.

I think the antacid people own stock in curry suppliers. White people are dumb.

Peasant food is not good for you. Foreign peasant food is worst for you.

Malthus shall prevail.

All except the handedness is true. Natural variations exist in eye colour, hair, nails, handedness. It doesn’t mean as much as psychologists claim it does, it’s just easy and cheap to study. They’re lazy. You have a dominant foot too but nobody gives a shit.

It’s fucking palmistry.

Most people are slightly ambi.

Mutants are not necessarily dysgenic though, advantageous ones are simply a lot rarer and normally come from better bloodline stock with reduced genetic load (in fact, that might be the deciding factor in whether a trait presents as useful or thanatos).

Look at the HBD studies about SES (class) over multiple generations. Social mobility is a false condition of fiat debt spirals, it will correct too. Champagne socialists will be the elderly people in manual labouring jobs.

Little mentioned but autism is a “low empathy” condition. Like psychopathy. They cannot cooperate properly and lack the emotional intelligence to be leaders. The idea some super-academic smartypants in the white house would solve all problems is symbolic of their deficits. They can’t run their own life in an orderly way.

Low empathy = antisocial, in practice.

They deny this from egocentrism but it’s pathognomonic of the pathological medical condition.

They deny it’s any of the last three things too. It’s part of the condition.

Why deny they lack empathy? They’re shrewd enough to know it’s socially undesirable but if you ask around the idea, they’ll freely admit they hate all people, raging bigots. They’re full of self-pity, self-loathing, refusal to change (like a sociopath) or learn from moral errors and highly reactive to others but in an angry closed-off way.

They think reactivity (over sensitive) and lashing out at people (intermittent explosive) is empathy.

Utterly incapable of humility. That requires the self-awareness of social intelligence but they don’t really see other people. They are not perceptive on the human level. They even crowd out other mental illnesses for more air time.

Super competent and smart, they claim…. until you hold them to that standard.
It’s like how the ADHD guys claim to be slow but also geniuses (logically exclusive). Their own subjective experience of their mind when it sputters like an old car biases them with feeling. They claim they don’t have feelings because they’re constantly over-run with them. Overwhelmed. It’s like Victorian hysteria in men.

A nerve study would be interesting.

They’ll abandon their parents on their deathbed once they hear their name’s on the will, totally callous. Instead of admitting they’re selfish, they’ll go Ayn Rand and claim (intellectualization is their favourite defensiveness) they aren’t bad people (just do bad things, repeatedly, by choice??!!) but society, unwilling to coddle, is dragging them down.

Antisocial people feel the need to destroy and punish all the good of society and spare the bad. It does vary.

In some instances, heartless. Look up stories of women who’ve been married to Asperger’s men, they sound almost exactly like sociopaths. For example, denial of the condition to gaslight then blaming the condition at other times.

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation.

oh look, a real psychologist and none of the JP fans like him

maybe he should tell them to wash their hands

In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

There has never been a pilot country of atheists. They refuse to found so much as a village. When a group doesn’t want to live among itself, it implicitly admits it is damaged.

They can’t play the Poor Me card if they aren’t surrounded by normal empaths who’ll assume the best.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

Longevity?

Can someone film Aubrey when told this?

That’s literally the best Darwinian metric.

I wonder if he could study atheist researchers of the psychology of religion. Would they rig the test? Yes, they’d try. Aren’t atheist researchers of religion a little biased? Nobody brings this up.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood,

look at the Wiccans, it’s a connection to the natural world (disconnection from the fake world of urban, neon and shiny atheist crap)

but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Aliens, bigfoot, Slenderman. Atheists believe in lots of things, diffuse. Next they’ll break out the healing crystals.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

Old men babies are damaged. Huh. If only I had a tag on paternal age.

Genetic disease leads to genetic suicide?

Of course, rather than blaming men for marrying and breeding to late, I’m sure they’ll blame wider society like men didn’t make a series of choices over years that materially harmed their children.

The problem people have with atheistkult isn’t that they don’t believe. It’s that they’re obsessive about how EVIL (but evil doesn’t exist?) this meme is and wish to harm and destroy and crush people who are “dumb” enough to fall for it and be happy and healthy.

Yeah, we aren’t falling for it.

You choose what to believe, you choose to look for it or not. They shut their eyes and cry “why don’t I see?”

Mala fides. If they were women in the olden days, they’d have been killed as witches. It’s amazing given how many claim to be super competent, how their life fails to play this out. We have mewling men who can’t take care of themselves but attempt to guilt trip the rest of us into respecting them and playing into the delusion.

throw on a dress and legally, we’d have to

Older men (35+) see large drop in fertility

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/1703.long

The impact of male age on fecundity remains controversial. Here, a large population study was used to investigate the effect of paternal age on time to conception. All couples in the Avon Health district expecting a baby between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1992 were eligible. Questionnaires completed by both the man and the woman at 18 weeks gestation covered specific fertility factors, e.g. parity, paternity, cohabitation and oral contraception; and non-specific factors, e.g. educational achievement, housing, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently related to conception in ≤6 or ≤12 months. Of 8515 planned pregnancies, 74% were conceived in ≤6 months, 14% in the second 6 months and 12% after more than a year. Nine variables, including the age of the woman, were independently related to time to conception. After adjustment for these, the likelihood of conception within 6 or 12 months was lower in older men. Compared to men <25 years old, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for conception in ≤12 months were 0.62 (0.40, 0.98), 0.50 (0.31, 0.81) and 0.51 (0.31, 0.86) in men aged 30–34, 35–39 and ≥40 years respectively.

That might explain Harry. And the kale smoothie diet. Good for sperm.

When people wait too long on purpose, with the right person, and find out they can’t have kids any more, I like to think it’s Mother Nature flipping them off with one hand and punching them in the balls with the other.

Why, you ask?

“the overall association with age was highly statistically significant. If the man’s age was treated as a continuous variable there was a significant linear relationship: the odds ratio for conception in ≤6 months decreased by 2% per year of age (P < 0.01) and for conception in ≤12 months by 3% (P < 0.001).”

Every year a man goes over 25, his likelihood of easy conception drops by 2%.

“These results suggest that there is a larger decline in male fecundity with advancing age than reported in earlier population studies (see above).”

That is all pretty funny considering the guys who think they have Thor-immortal sperm.

More like thaw.

“Therefore our conclusions would remain valid even if the most fertile of the older men had been eliminated from the study group because they achieved unplanned pregnancies. If the opposite bias predominated and the less fertile couples were lost from the older groups, we would underestimate the effect of age on male fecundity. It is unlikely that a substantial number of men aged ≤24 years would believe themselves to be sub-fertile….

Please call it virility. Men don’t give birth, they can’t be fecund. Just call the impotence, impotence. There are levels.

Were this true of older men, it would again lead to an underestimate of the effect of age on fecundity.”

“…However, they do not exclude the possibility that the greater fecundity of young relative to older men was more marked in the past. 

….It is also possible that more fertile men complete their families sooner, and less often try to father children in their thirties or forties.”

Burn.

It gets worse. You can’t supplement your way out of ball shrinkage.

Although most data come from elderly men changes can be detected in middle age (Erfurth and Hagmar, 1995Bonavera et al., 1997). There are a number of morphological changes in the ageing testis, including a decrease in the number of Leydig cells (Neaves et al., 1985), a decline in Sertoli cell numbers and daily sperm production (Johnson et al., 1984a,b) and an increase in the involution of seminiferous tubules (Paniagua et al., 1987). Spermatozoa from older men are less fertile after intrauterine insemination (Mathieu et al., 1995Brzechffa and Buyalos, 1997) or in donor insemination (Lansac, 1995). These observations support the conclusion that the effects of paternal age on a couple’s fecundity are real and may be greater than previously believed. After adjustment for other factors, the probability that an ultimately fertile couple will take >12 months to conceive nearly doubles from ~8% when the man is <25 years to ~15% when he is >35 years and paternal age is a further factor to take into account when deciding the prognosis for infertile couples.

Doubles in ten years. That’s worse than any female stat. It tanks!

What about the sperm?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268926297_Consistent_age-dependent_declines_in_human_semen_quality_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Reduced fertility typically occurs among women in their late 30s, but increasing evidence indicates that advanced paternal age is associated with changes in reproduction as well. Numerous studies have investigated age-based declines in semen traits, but the impact of paternal age on semen parameter values remains inconclusive.

Clear rationale, nice.

Using data from 90 studies (93,839 subjects), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of male age on seven ejaculate traits (semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, morphology, total motility, progressive motility and DNA fragmentation). Age-associated declines in semen volume, percentage motility, progressive motility, normal morphology and unfragmented cells were statistically significant and results generally seemed to be robust against confounding factors. Unexpectedly, sperm concentration did not decline with increasing male age, even though we found that sperm concentration declined over time.

More chance of mutant sperm, future psychiatrist patient babies! Lucky you!

It would be better if they made less but retained quality than risk stillbirth.

Our findings indicate that male age needs more recognition as a potential contributor to the negative pregnancy outcomes and reduced offspring health associated with delayed first reproduction. We suggest that greater focus on collection of DNA fragmentation and progressive motility in a clinical setting may lead to better patient outcomes during fertility treatments of aging couples.

Ouch. Thirties is now aging? Well, I guess in medicine, it is.

Really, 40 is the age where male fertility tanks severely.

Like, you’d be better off not conceiving than risk the cost of a disabled kid.

http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)00104-X/pdf

Result(s): The odds ratio of failure to conceive for paternal age 40 years was 2.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10–3.61) when the woman was 35–37 years old, 2.03 (95% CI: 1.12–3.68) for age 38–40 years, and 5.74 (95% CI: 2.16, 15.23) for age 41 years and over.
Conclusion(s): As an increasing number of couples choose to postpone childbearing, they should be informed that paternal age over 40 years is an important risk factor for failure to conceive.

This marked maternal age effect led to the conclusion that 35 years is the “amber light” in the reproductive life of women (4).
Paternal age was long almost ignored in studies of age effect on reproductive outcomes, but its potential role has recently been investigated. Some works have shown that increasing paternal age is accompanied by greater risk of delay in achieving pregnancy, of miscarriage and of late fetal death (5–8). In a recent review of the literature, we considered that 40 years could be the “amber light” in male reproductive life, as is 35 years for women’s reproductive life (9)

Wow, five years. Almost the average difference of successful marital unions. (Wait, exactly that, the man is five years older). Now I know why it’s Mother Nature.

…. To analyze paternal age effect mediated by biological aging alone, data on medically assisted cycles provide a very interesting model

Our results provide, for the first time, strong evidence for a paternal age effect on failure to conceive that is linked only to biological male aging (without confusion with sexual activity). We observed a clear tendency to increased risk of failure to conceive, especially when the fathers were over 40 years old. Results in the first and last classes in Table 2 (older woman with young man or young woman with older man) should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of couples in these classes. We thus analyzed Table 2 by concentrating on classes with at least 30 couples. This revealed a clear increase in risk of failure to conceive with paternal age.

Our results on a paternal age effect after 40 years are in accordance with results recently published concerning the general population. In a European population-based study of
couples attempting to conceive naturally, a significant odds ratio of 2.99 (95% CI: 2.77, 7.55) for the risk of not having conceived after 12 months of attempting to achieve pregnancy was observed when the woman was 35–39 years old and the man 40 years old and over (7). A similar tendency was observed in another European study of 782 couples, which showed a decrease in the daily probability of conception in couples composed of a woman 35–39 years old and of a man in his late thirties or older (8).
It has been demonstrated that couples having difficulty in conceiving also have an increased risk of miscarriage (19).
Thus, the association between paternal age and failure to conceive raised the question of a possible association between paternal age and miscarriage. In the literature, an
increased risk of miscarriage was observed in couples composed of a woman 35 years old and over and of a man 40 years old and over (OR 6.73; 95% CI: 3.50, 12.95) (6).

What about 50+? Obvious grandfather territory.

More recently, in a large Danish cohort, a twofold increase of the risk of early fetal death was found when the father was 50 years old and over compared with fathers 25–29 years
old, after controlling for various confounders and especially for maternal age (5). In the same cohort, the authors showed a paternal age effect as early as 45 years when considering late fetal deaths.

Yet they’ll still try to blame it on the women….

….The authors concluded that elevated paternal age (35 years) increased the risk of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester and at the beginning of the second trimester, with a suggestion that the association was stronger for deaths occurring during the first trimester.

large genetic abnormalities

Interestingly, a remarkable concordance exists among all these studies, stressing the fact that older fathers (40–45 years old) have a key impact on both reproductive issues, failure to conceive, and miscarriage.

When a man conceives, his sperm quality is all he contributes. Male age will be a much larger factor than anything female, all things considered. Try making a decent omelette with stale eggs. Try fertilizing an ovum with old sperm. The single ingredient on that side of equation becomes very. very important.

Women in that case are trying to compensate for the errors of men.

The mechanism for the paternal age effect remains to be explained.

….Really.

Aging germline DNA is not better DNA.

Previously, as for maternal age, the genetic hypothesis had been emphasized (21, 22). After analysis of 11,535 pregnancies obtained by artificial insemination using donor spermatozoa, an increased risk of trisomy 21 for the fetus when the donor was 38 years old has been suggested (23).

A lot of my generation thinking they can wait will be sorely mistaken.

Gambling your future, literally.

It concludes

In reproduction, age must no longer be considered as the concern of the woman, but as that of the couple. Similar to maternal age over 35 years, paternal age over 40 years is a key risk factor in reproduction.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114096.php

The results showed that maternal age was closely linked to decreased pregnancy rate, which was 8.9 per cent in women over 35 compared to 14.5 per cent in younger women.

Small difference.

But the scientists also found that the father’s age was also important, not only on pregnancy rates, but perhaps more surprisingly, on the rate of miscarriage, with a pronounced negative effect once the father was over 35 years of age…

A representative of the Eylau Centre also said on an interview with the BBC aired early this morning that the likely cause of the decrease in male fertility after 35 was DNA fragmentation. He said that DNA fragmentation was not unusual in male sperm and often this is repaired “by the woman”, but when it is too fragmented it is beyond repair, leading to pregnancy failure and miscarriage, he said.

They’ll still blame the woman.

There’s a reason all of Henry VIII’s kids died childless.

Frozen sperm is only good for about ten years, by the way.

Maybe instead of proving their manliness by submitting to 23andMe, these guys should be getting their sperm quality checked and post those results.

Sperm donors have an age limit of 40.
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/2010-05-13_SCAAC_paper_-_maximum_age_for_sperm_donation.pdf

Human genetic load dragging us down

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.” The word is dysgenic for $200.
“Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.”


Good luck with dropping global IQ, if anyone dared measure such a thing. Sum IQ/global population is the equation.

Who will pay for this global NHS? Our NHS is already running down with a slight immigrant pressure.

It is slight compared to The World.

As JF has mentioned, “clusters” as seen in racial categorization, pertain to findings of genetic distance.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side.

Called it.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/chromosomes-make-culture-including-language/

Speaking of germline mutations ruining society.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597845/

Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations

Is that a large enough sample for the manosphere? They don’t like the answer so obviously not.

As if I don’t post topics strategically… tut tut.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/old-men-dead-babies/

“Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations. Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted older fathers’ children, all else equal, would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness.”
The sins of the father…
Old dads, no grandkids?
“showed negative paternal age effects on infant survival and offspring reproductive success.”
Sexual selection goes for young men, with better hormone profiles and less obesity.*
Darwin says aged paternal societies are bad for it. Nobody needs your dusty DNA. That’s a sign of corruption – keeping the young men down, not breeding. *another direct link to children again
“Effects survived tests for key competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss,”
Again, you cannot blame the women.

“We can use our findings to aid in predicting the effect increasingly older parents in today’s society will have on their children’s survival and reproductive success. 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 periods.”

As close as science gets to settled.

Old fathers are a sign of a dying society. Right up there with strippers and crossdressers. You passed the time period where you were viable with decadence but managed to breed anyway, that society’s social norms are seriously damaged. Applies to women too but paternal age is a bigger factor so I have to spotlight. In a Patriarchy, you would expect fathers are held to the highest standards possible. Their total authority relies on the moral authority consequent of that fact.