/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16123698
>I'd like to have 6 children over the next 10 years with minimal complications or autism.
>autism
Use donor sperm then.

>>16123698
Maybe a former porn star because they have massive vagina which allows for big brain child to exit easily

>>16123874
I'd prefer her to be 18 to avoid autism

>>16123914
Can we stop with the "muh old mother - autism myth". We know it's old sperm, not old eggs.

>>16123698
Once it's in and you close your eyes do you even care?

>>16123980
>Nature is wrong for driving women to select older men and driving older men to select younger women.
You sure look like a scientist.

>>16123980
old eggs ruin the sperm development, cope rostaoid

>>16123980

>>16123993
>>16124112
>>16124142
Meaningless babbling doesn't refute my point. Provide definite evidence that doesn't go like. "My mother had me at 31, that's why I'm mentally disabled to the point of relying on handouts".

>>16124156
Because you're point is meaningless babble. This is someone pointing to a blue square and calling it a red circle.

>>16123698
>minimal complications
Best selector for this will be athleticism in both parents.
>autism
There’s no great selector for this, but best practice is to make sure both parents are young, especially the father.

Good luck

>>16124156
your point is the same as mine, show proof yourself before asking me, fart

>>16124215
>>16124201
>no u

>>16123698

>>16123980
There are so many studies about the neurological complications in a fetus due to a mother's advanced age, you dumb cunt.

>>16124246
That makes no sense. Why the fuck would we have evolved to find beauty extremely important if it is supposedly evolutionarily unimportant? Pure retardation.

>>16124209
>but best practice is to make sure both parents are young, especially the father.
The best practice is to make sure that neither of the parents is autistic. Autism -> having children late AND autistic children -> retards on 4chan conflating old fathers with autistic children

>>16124286
>Why the fuck
>Peacock
You're welcome retard.

>>16124156

https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2014/april/autism-risk-older-parents#:~:text=Autism%20risk%20grows%20steadily%20with,with%20mothers'%20age%20after%2030.

>>16124329
Oh yeah, you know of one example of Fisherian runaway selection and use that as a conclusive argument for how beauty in humans is dysgenic. How the fuck is it even possible to be as retarded as you?

>>16124286
>neurological complications in a fetus
Which neurological complications? Autism isn't a neurological complication per se. I'm fairly sure we would be seeing lots more of issues other than autism if there was some underlying neurological thing but we apparently don't.
>Down's syndrome
Chromosomal, not neurological.
>>16124334
I know the study, not to mention it's already 10 years old. Compare the autism odds for a 40 year old woman with the one for a 20 year old woman in the study. The relative ratio is increased by a whooping 10-20 %. In other words, if your child has a 1 % likelihood to be diagnosed with autism based on a subjective and industrially funded screening tool, it now increases to a 1.1 - 1.2 % odd ratio. Doesn't look that big to me.

>>16124358
Compare this with Down's syndrome where the likelihood ratio between a 20-year-old (0.05 %) and 40-year-old (1-1.5 %) differs by 2000 to 3000 percent.

>>16123698
>>16123835
>>16123914
>>16123980
>>16123993
Say I want to have a child, what is the max safest age range of the woman I'm producing said child with

>>16124378
22-30. Peak fertility, go younger and massively increased risk for pre-term and low birth weights, go later and the women start having fertility issues.

>>16124358
Incredibly disingenuous post.
>10 years
Isn't all that long ago. Also irrelevant, unless you think there is compelling evidence that somehow in the course of a decade whatever phemenon was causitive of these observations has somehow drastically changed or ceased altogether. I mirror your own request back to you: provide your evidence.
>The relative ratio is increased by a whooping 10-20 %
This is statiatically significant. It's very telling how you shifted the goalposts. Initially it was "that's a myth" and "theres no evidence", now you admit you were already aware of the existing evidence, but you think it's not that big of a deal. It's almost like you have an ulterior motive. Interesting.

>>16123698
it depends on your own genetics also. and if they are a suitable match for the woman's.

>>16123874
is this true. is a blown out vadge really good for birthing larger headed babies?

>>16124486
>somehow in the course of a decade whatever phemenon was causitive of these observations has somehow drastically changed or ceased altogether
I don't know what that cognitive bias is called that immediately makes people trustful of every study or brainscan no matter how questionable the study setup is. 1. A single study proves shit. 2. The study did not take covariables into account nor were any confounding variables accounted for. 3. I'm aware of studies that do not show that association. 4. There's most likely a categorical difference between "autism" diagnosed in Downies and other babies with chromosomal/genetic issues attributable to high maternal age and, for example, Asperger's. It depends on you whether or not you want to put both things in the same category. I personally don't and would like to differentiate properly instead of relying on a suitcase term.
>This is statiatically significant.
I feel like you ignore the marge of error which just so happens to diverge markedly after the 35 age bracket.
>Initially it was "that's a myth" and "theres no evidence", now you admit you were already aware of the existing evidence
Pointless sophistry. I have pointed out, specifically in the case of the study you presented, which you just so happened to present erroneously as definite proof, that the found correlation is surprisingly weak and would have remarkably little impact in reality. Even if the age of the mother upon giving birth would increase by 5 years, autism prevalence numbers would increase by a mere 0.03 - 0.05 %.
>It's almost like you have an ulterior motive. Interesting.
Which ulterior motive? By pointing out your flawed reasoning and your lack of understanding when it comes to statistical analyses?

>>16124378
Safest for the woman, ~14-25. Safest for the baby, ~17-26.

>>16124458
Fertility is not that important of a factor for humans under the age of ~35, since you can simply have more sex. All things considered, the optimal woman is about 17, even though her fertility is slightly lower than her lifetime maximum fertility.

>>16123698
Tall teenage girls

>>16123698
Age >> your fetish.

>>16124681
>13 and half
What the fuck?

>>16124378
Just what i heard from a doctor, complications start to rise mid 30s for women. And from then on only slightly but later much more sharply. So 35 thats still ok then 40 is gonna be hard and 45 its super hard.
Getting pregnat will be so hard and also conplications

>>16124777
Yes, 13½ is better than 35 by all metrics. Blame nature.

>>16124777
most people are brown

>>16124777
wow it's almost like social taboo doesn't necessarily correlate to biological reality and age of puberty is a more reliable marker

>>16124298
Sexual selection can easily get out of hand, we see it in numerous species today.