Why Are All Girls Born As Virgins?

[abminara 0]

Okay... that might be a weird topic, but I am quite unsure about that matter. The thing is that the theory of evolution tells us that if a family undergoes some effect from the outside envioronment for a long time (several generations) - in the end those creatures will be born with some type of a feature that would make them fit better to the envioronment. E. g. If there's a great flood - hawks and other birds would have to learn how to swim in order to find food and rest to survive. Or, if you take a cow, and cut her left ear, then take her baby and cut its ear, then its baby, etc, etc, in the end there is a probability that you will get a cow born that would not have an ear from the very beginning (birth).Now, back to the question, why are all the girls born as virgins? I mean, technically, all the women in any girl's family tree going up 20, 000 years to the beginnings of *person* sapiens were not virgins by the time that their babies were born (or their embryos were created inside of them)

[Carson 0]

I think that the word virgin just describes doing something, and not how a person is. If you have not had sex, then you are a virgin. Girls cannot have sex while they are growing inside their mothers, so they cannot have sex before birth.

in the end those creatures will be born with some type of a feature that would make them fit better to the envioronment. E. g. If there's a great flood - hawks and other birds would have to learn how to swim in order to find food and rest to survive.

I think has to do with mutations in humans... but how is this related to girls being virgins? I suppose it depends on how you look at the word...

[Mermaid711 0]

Wow."Pass the dutche 'pon the 'pon the left." :)YOu do realize thatguys can be virgins too.. right?Anyways, the term "virgin" is used to describe one who has not undergone sexuall intercourse (You can ask my worht the wait teacher) so therefore, just because you mother isn't a virgin doesn't mean you won't be one.

[csp4.0 1]

but what if, lets say there was a pair of irregular twins (1 male, 1 female), and while in the mother's womb, they somehow had 'sex' while still inside the mother's womb. So would they be considered virgin's orwould they not be

[Calimero 0]

the word is not a biological word but is a word meaning what you think it means so therefor it cant be passed onfor egsample if a woman bungee jumps, then their daughter bungees to and so on, it is not a biological thing saying i have bungee jumped once, but is a thing that you have done.

[Carson 0]

but what if, lets say there was a pair of irregular twins (1 male, 1 female), and while in the mother's womb, they somehow had 'sex' while still inside the mother's womb. So would they be considered virgin's orwould they not be

To be considered not a virgin, there would have to be some kind of penetration, correct? I think babies still in the mothers womb are not developed enough for this to happen.

[TikiPrincess 0]

Rather than take the sarcastic route as the others seem to have done, I'm going to assume you mean the matter of the hymen or thin tissue within the uterus that breaks when a woman has intercourse. I don't really know why it's there, although I'm sure there's lots of different theories. The fact of the matter, though, is that not all women have a hymen and some have a very thick hymen that needs to be surgically broken for the woman to be... fully penetrated, I guess you could say... However, a woman's hymen does not prevent pregnancy or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. In this day and age, a woman can actually carry a baby to term and give birth through a C-section without ever rupturing her hymen, though I see no reason why she would want to. But as the other Trappers stated above, virginity is more of a societal status rather than a physical state of being. Males are also virgins when they're born.As for your theory with the cow, it doesn't really work. Ranchers brand cattle or clip their ears in a certain way to claim them and they've done so for decades, if not centuries. The cattle aren't born branded or with clipped ears. It's possible to crossbreed animals to try to get specific traits from them, like the dogs that are supposed to shed less or be gentler on allergies. Poodles, by nature, don't have animal dander and don't shed like most other dogs, so most people aren't allergic to them. But lots of families want the fun-loving personality and looks of a Labrador Retriever. So, theoretically, if you breed the two together, you'll get the personality of a Lab with the hair characteristics of a Poodle. The problem is that sometimes you get the opposite, depending on whatever genetic trait is dominant in the pairing.Or perhaps you were referring to natural selection, the process by which certain species thrive while others become extinct due to specific genetic traits. For a physical characteristic to be passed down from one generation to the next, it has to appear in the DNA. It can't be the product an external action. Again, your theory doesn't really hold because the ranchers aren't really choosing to raise cattle with specific ear shapes and killing all the rest. There has to exist some sort of genetic difference in a cow to cause it to be born with a cropped ear, then bred with a bull until it gives birth to a calf with a cropped ear.

[sylenzednuke 0]

The thing is that the theory of evolution tells us that if a family undergoes some effect from the outside envioronment for a long time (several generations) - in the end those creatures will be born with some type of a feature that would make them fit better to the envioronment. Or, if you take a cow, and cut her left ear, then take her baby and cut its ear, then its baby, etc, etc, in the end there is a probability that you will get a cow born that would not have an ear from the very beginning (birth).

The theory of Evolution doesn't state this. But Lamarck's Theory of Inheritance does. The Theory of Evolution just tells us about Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection. Neo-Darwinism somehow goes like this. Mutations are the raw materials and Natural Selection is the operative force. German biologist August Weismann carried out an experiment where he cut off the tails of rats for 20 generations but tail-less rats were never born. Indian's practice ear-piercing for thousands of years, yet babies with pierced ears are to be born. Artificially maintained small feet of Chinese women never caused baby females to have small feet as compared to boys.
The common factor here is, including your put-forth example. None of these conditions in the examples were natural ones or showed a sense of need or accompliance to the environment on part of the organism. These were all forced upon the individual and weren't natural at all. There is no need for ear piercing, tail-less rats or small feet of women. The somatic cells are the ones which are affected by these actions and they die with the organism. The germ cells are passed on from generation to generation according to the Theory of Continuity of Germplasm by Weismann. The breaking of the hymen doesn't have any effect on the germ cells, so these properties of an "experienced" female aren't passed on to the next generation. And the presence of the hymen, or lack of it doesn't really affect the individual in any way so again there is no need for Nature to work here, it can rest.

Or perhaps you were referring to natural selection, the process by which certain species thrive while others become extinct due to specific genetic traits. For a physical characteristic to be passed down from one generation to the next, it has to appear in the DNA. It can't be the product an external action. Again, your theory doesn't really hold because the ranchers aren't really choosing to raise cattle with specific ear shapes and killing all the rest. There has to exist some sort of genetic difference in a cow to cause it to be born with a cropped ear, then bred with a bull until it gives birth to a calf with a cropped ear.

Bang on. And even this process requires some amount of time and doesn't really get done in a single generation. It's a slow, gradual process. And even I agree it's more of a societal term referring to an "unexperienced" woman or man as a matter of fact both are referred to as virgins.

[darthvaron 0]

. Or, if you take a cow, and cut her left ear, then take her baby and cut its ear, then its baby, etc, etc, in the end there is a probability that you will get a cow born that would not have an ear from the very beginning (birth).

That's your fail. You're completely wrong
The fact of cutting out an ear is not going to create a cow-without-ear spiece. A genetical change is needed for getting that.
In any case, in a long term the cows that mute (by arbitrary genetic mutation, not caused by you) without a ear will suffer less because you won't cut them anything and will have more chance to survive your "torture"

You're messing up the terms of "selection" and "creation" (mostly like Christians in fact).
Selection means that you start with many cows, some born(*) with an ear and some with two. You only let reproduce cows with one ear so its genetic code will have offspring. After some generations of one-ear-cows, their genetic code will be "clean" of two-eared-cow code. So no two-ear-cows will born unless the mute again.

born(*): It doesn't mean that are ALL caused by genetics, but some may be, so finally (by selection) you will only have the genetic ones..

And of course virginity have nothing to do with biology, and still less have to do with genetics.
First I though you were talking about how sex appeared, that is an interesting topic. (is the most effective way of selection, if you think about it)

[KansukeKojima 0]

that was an odd topic but anyways...The reasons that an organisms body structure changes through the genarations, is through natural selection. Once an organism exists, if it loses a limb, or whatever, it will not effect the next generation if that same organism reproduces. But if tonnes of really tiny mice die off, then the only ones left are large ones, when they mate, there offspring will naturally be big, not the tiny ones.So in short, you can't make a legless dog species by cutting off its limbs. And neither can people be born un-virgin.....Besides the scientific reason, the question is a little redundant, as virginity is defined by whether or not that single being has had intercourse.

[abminara 0]

I just figured it out in my AP Biology 2 class There was a guy that proposed that every single trait in nature has occured due to natural selection. He had an example of giraffs. He claimed that they used to have short necks, but then the grass extinguished, and all the food left was on the trees, so,with each generation, their necks just grew longer. He made a test - took a pair of dogs and cut their tails, and made them mate. Did same thing to their kidsand their kidsand so on for 52 generations but even the 53rd one had a tail. Thus we nowknow that the physical defects that we acquire during lifetime cannot affect our offspring in any way. P.S. Yes, this is a very weird topic.

[kobra500 1]

Do any girls remember their first sexual experience in the womb?, no, well then theres your answerVirginity is based on wether or not you have had intercourse with another person. Simple, also you are your own person, there isn't a chromosome for virginity there for you cannot inherit non-virginity.

[dhruv 0]

The term virgin means : " Person who hasn't had sexual intercourse with the other sex," so a male and a female can be virgins.And the world is made this way so that girls are virgins and don't start having babies when there born.How would they cope with periods etc at a early age. Honestly it's a ridiculous question to ask.Life is like this and through evolution this will certainly not change.

[magic 0]

Its not only girls that are virgins. Guys are too.

[Dagoth Nereviar 0]

Well seen as the word "virgin" describes someone who has not had sexual intercourse. That's a pretty stupid question to ask. The answer is... because theres noone to have sex with inside of the womb.