>>20723761There isn't enough research into The phenomenon of ageing as a molecular mechanism, which is called transposable elements.
Either way, the father's age doesn't matter. Spermatozoa are replenished every 48 hours, whereas women get their entire ovarian reserve while gestating in the womb.
The male gametes are different from female gametes. Spermatogenesis is different from oogenesis. The oocytes are in suspended apoptosis, a process that's called meiotic arrest, since the woman is herself a bi-pedal embryo housing.
The rates of mutation, as a result of DNA methylation and fragmented translation, are considerably higher in oocytes, which is precisely because they only undergo meiosis I and II right before they fall in the fallopian tube for fertilization.
Spermatozoa mutation has less to do with age, and more to do with endocrine stressors. Ergo, men that live in environments without endocrine and carcinogenic stressors don't exhibit any appreciable rates of gametic mutation.
However, endocrine stressors do accumulate with age and, given a polluted environment, are contaminating spermatozoa along with general health. Ergo, you can argue paternal age does play a part with spermatozoa quality and viability, since it's statistically quantifiable despite being dishonest from a biological standpoint.
Therefore, the male software does not degrade with age, but an environment can make the male hardware degrade, which subsequently affects the reproductive software. A male who is fundamentally healthy and living in an uncontaminated environment will see no statistically ponderable decrease in fertility throughout his life.
Unless the father lives in filth and pollution, his sperm quality doesn't decline with age.
For women it's far more complicated, but the answer is simple - breed when you are young, which is from 16-20 (or early 20s) if not earlier, after that it becomes far easier to have more kids as a woman gets old.
