Infinite semen for all

So women lose their reproductive abilities most typically in their early 50s while men are pretty much able to impregnate someone even on their dead bed. The question is how this is an evolutionary advantage when we take the following factors into consideration?

1) Older fathers produce offspring that often has either mental or psychological disabilities. Daily Fail also reports that they are more "ugly" and "live longer"
2) Y chromosome has a high mutation rate and is highly susceptible to environmental influences meaning that since Y chromosome is all about balls and sperm, their male offspring may be infertile.
3) Defective chromosomal combinations rise with the age of father. Trisomy on the 23rd chromosome may be common.

If natural selection was at play and made it possible for male bodies to invest in reproduction at any age it poses either neutral or virtually no advantage to males and actually thwart their chances to pass on their genes successfully. So what gives?

>if it's there it must be an evolutionary advantage
oh boy

All that really matters is that there's no selection pressure against a particular trait. Which means there can be parts of our genetics and physiology that has no particular reason for being there (let alone conferring some advantage).

Evolution is random mutation followed by non-random survival. That implicitly lets through a lot of stuff that has no bearing on an organism's survival or reproduction. Bad sperm in old age doesn't matter to evolution because the male will have already reproduced (or not).

The mods should seriously ban people who come here with these ridiculously lame elementary school questions even 10 year old children should know the answer to. Me, I at least have the shame of not making a fool out of myself before even trying to find out about things first. But you guys? Fucking whatever random inane thought comes to your mind, you just go ahead and post it. No filters required, yeah?

So let me hold your hand here, OP:

How long have people and their closest ancestors lived, on average, over the past say 500k years? *WAY* less than their 50's. So there was no way for evolution to give a flying fuck - as it were - about what happens after that. The same applies for most disease we have as well, from cancer to Alzheimer's etc. Our modern day middle-aged and senile people played no part during the development of homo sapiens or its ancestors, because people simply didn't live that long with the lack of hygiene, medication, diverse food, and all the natural dangers at the time.

Next question? Nvm. go GOOGLE it.

Would you say the reason why spermatogenesis doesn't go away with age is because the capability of passing on your genes whatever the offspring turn out fine or not outweighs having no option to pass on genes which is perhaps the reason why it wasn't specifically selected against?

Men who live longer probably have more fit genes in the environment, as those with unfit genes will die young. So it lets men with better genes continue spreading them.

Or maybe it just didn't matter in the past what happens beyond age 50 because people aged faster and you couldn't raise children at that age anyway. The male reproduction mechanism is rather simple compared to the female one, so it might just be a technical issue rather than any evolutionary reason. Natural selection will only get rid of features that actually influence your chances of survival/reproduction.

The female in your picture was missing an important detail, OP. Here, I fixed it for you.

Average life expectancy on human males was very short until few centuries ago (30 years or less). Those who survived got the natural right to spread their seeds if they could. Just think of lions. They are leaders in their groups until someone kick them out, probably being killed in the process. But meanwhile they are in the top, the are the ones to fuck them bitches.