Not in my experience. It's all about whether a candidate can come in and learn quickly. The skills are nearly irrelevant.
Which makes sense. What are the chances that you're going to be versed in every technology a new company uses?
Also, the idea that old people need to have exact skills is harmful. Our industry changes so rapidly that the old people are the most likely to have resumes that don't reflect their potential. Nobody believes them when they say they can learn just as quickly as everyone else.
1. hiring promising interns and graduates - no relevant skills but the hope is that they're so smart they'll be able to learn quickly
2. hiring people with very relevant skills - either they've already done the exact same thing at another company or they've done something adjacent and quite similar and can probably handle the switch.
The 2nd track is the bigger one by a wide margin, for the simple fact that people are only 20-something-recent-graduates once in their life time, but tend to move to new jobs several times during their career.
Unfortunately, there's not really any way to prove this. I wish there were, since it'd be quite nice to demonstrate it. All I can do is say what I've seen.
One counter argument that I would be willing to consider is that sometimes older workers who have neglected to update their skills are explaining their rejection as ageism when in fact they simply can't demonstrate that they have the relevant skills and expect to be hired based on their past (and by now, not so relevant) experience.