how do the various evolutionary hypothesises explain the human female hymen?

No I'm not trolling, and I know its probably covered in every Evolution 101 Class ever but I genuinely have no idea...I'm a theologian not a scientist.

Surely one can't argue that its purpose is to prevent underage and possibly damaging or poor mating?

The only argument I can see for having a physical sign of a woman's virginity is to assure the male of the purity of his children ..ie that his and only his genes, not a rival male's, have been passed on.

But that's a bit tenuous even for evolutionists.

quote:During mammalian development, the female reproductive system arises with the formation and coalescence of the Müllerian Ducts to form the Fallopian tubes, uterus, and vagina. At their posterior end, the Müllerian Ducts do not open into the urogenital sinus, but rather they form a tubercle at the presumptive opening of the vagina. During the development of the uterus and vagina, these organs are separated from the urogenital sinus by an epithelial plug which eventually thins and perforates to form the hymen.



The hymen is simply the vestigial membranes of the vagina and urogenital sinus at their point of fusion. During development of the mouth, a similar vestigial membrane occurs, called the oral plate, which ruptures as the mouth continues to form. As a vestigal organ, it is difficult to place an adaptive purpose on the hymen. The evolution of a system is the sum of positive selection, negative selection, and no selection, i.e. if a structure is not detrimental to the system, it is usually maintained, even if it serves no purpose. If there is no evolutionary pressure against incomplete fusion of the vagina and urogenital sinus, then the structure persists as a vestige of the Müllerian Ducts. To my knowledge, all marsupial and placental mammals have this structure, so there is probably no specific courtship advantage to virginity, and its persistence throughout Mammalia suggests that there is no disadvantage, or it would have disappeared long ago.

Patten, BM, and Carlson, BM, Foundations of Embryology, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

Look at that shit. Complete reply in 4 minutes. I deserve a cookie. http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif)



[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 03-31-2007).]

Thanks but this

quote:The evolution of a system is the sum of positive selection, negative selection, and no selection, i.e. if a structure is not detrimental to the system, it is usually maintained, even if it serves no purpose.

sounds like a very intelligent 'cop out'..or am i just being over cynical?

^ You're being overly cynical. Vestigial organs and body parts are seen throughout nature. Some are remnants of evolutionary ancestors, and some (like the hymen) are a byproduct of the development of other organs within the body.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 03-31-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

sounds like a very intelligent 'cop out'..or am i just being over cynical?

It's not a cop out. When a change takes place, it's either detrimental, causing the species to slowly die out, beneficial, causing the species to adapt to their surrounding and giving a better rate of survival, or neutral, i.e. doing neither of these things. This is evolution 101.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

It's not a cop out. When a change takes place, it's either detrimental, causing the species to slowly die out, beneficial, causing the species to adapt to their surrounding and giving a better rate of survival, or neutral, i.e. doing neither of these things. This is evolution 101.

So what you're saying (and again I stress I'm not trolling) is that sometimes nature just wastes time and energy making and keeping stuff that ain't of any use but isn't of itsself harmful?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

So what you're saying (and again I stress I'm not trolling) is that sometimes nature just wastes time and energy making and keeping stuff that ain't of any use but isn't of itsself harmful?

Yes, because nature isn't a conscious being aware of what it's doing, whereas you're thinking of it as if it's a God. All it is at a most basic level is genes changing over time, causing animals to adapt better to their environment (which is also changing, hence why some species who thrived for so long die, etc.), stay the same or not survive as well.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-31-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Yes, because nature isn't a conscious being aware of what it's doing. You're thinking of nature as if it's God.

No i was just using personification to make a point/ask a question.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

No i was just using personification to make a point/ask a question.

If it was to ask a question, you were making me repeat myself, if it was to make a point, what point would that be exactly?

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

If it was to ask a question, you were making me repeat myself, if it was to make a point, what point would that be exactly?

I was asking you to repeat yourself cos i ain't the crispiest cookie in the jar and I like to make sure that I understood you correctly at my level.

My point was also to inject a hint of scepticism because this whole thing about some changes being 'neutral' kind of bothers me.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

My point was also to inject a hint of scepticism because this whole thing about some changes being 'neutral' kind of bothers me.

Out of interest, why?

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Out of interest, why?

Mainly because I have the impression that Mother Nature (personification for dim wits like me again) tends to know damn well what she's a doing n' why.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Mainly because I have the impression that Mother Nature (personification for dim wits like me again) tends to know damn well what she's a doing n' why.

Hence you lied when you said "no i was just using personification to make a point/ask a question" and denied thinking of nature as a conscious being, because you can only know what you're doing if you're conscious.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-31-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Hence you lied when you said "no i was just using personification to make a point/ask a question" and denied thinking of nature as a conscious being, because you can only know what you're doing if you're conscious.



HUh? Run that one by me again but real slow please.