Parthenogenesis

a virgin shall conceive… give birth…  Luke 1:31, 34

Is it reasonable—logical for a rational mind to belief in the virgin birth? I.e. that a woman who has never had sexual relations with a male should conceive and give birth to a child?
Before you answer think about the definition of a virgin.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

• A person who has never had sexual intercourse:
• A person who is naive, innocent, or inexperienced in a particular context:
• Entomology A female insect that produces eggs without being fertilized.
• Adjective: Not yet used, exploited, or processed: [e.g. acres of virgin forests]

What do you think—should the following qualify as virgins? A baby girl who has no hymen at birth? How about a girl raped while unconscious? And the well known cases of young women who had their hymen torn during sports or accident, but had never had sex?

Is a notoriously promiscuous girl—who does not go all the way but, has done every imaginable and unimaginable thing, still a virgin because the hymen is still intact?

For the purpose of this piece we are using the bible’s intended meaning: a girl or woman who has never had sex with a man. (Let’s refer to this as true virgin). Just for argument: such a virgin can give conceive by artificial insemination. And many midwives can confirm that with a few women the hymen survives until labor, even with ‘natural’ insemination.

If it can be demonstrated that it is scientifically possible for a true virgin to conceive then any unwillingness to believe is: irrational and a willful choice not to believe. Could be such do not want to believe because of the consequences of it being true.

 Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it has 'become’ quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to conceive.
Many will agree that it is not only very possible for virtual virgins to conceive but also that many have given birth to healthy babies. But, not many will want to accept that true virgins can conceive and give birth without a father (especially to a male child). They argue: where will the male components of the DNA come from? They believe their doubt is based on science and not on a bias—an unwillingness to believe in the virgin birth.

Science of it
Scientific Logic also shows parthenogenesis is not impossible since it is observed in many animals. But, is it possible in man? If it happens in man it is not likely to be noticed because of the mind-set that it is impossible: (She must have done something people conclude, and if there is a suitable scape goat all the better). Of course where there is a husband—the conception is assumed to be normal.

The bible’s position is that a true virgin conceived and had a male child. And the explanation: just as God created (formed) Adam, He also formed a new creation in Mary’s womb. He used genetic material free from the damages in the Adamic DNA. Like He formed the 1st Adam from the earth, He was simply forming another Adam—the spiritual 2nd Adam called Jesus who is equipped to start a new lineage.
Today, science is beginning to (grudgingly?) accept the possibility of virgin or sexless birth.

Virgin birth in Science

Parthenogenetic mouse (Credit: Jane Burton / NPL)

Virgin birth, known to scientists as parthenogenesis, appears to be rather common in the animal kingdom. Many insects and other invertebrates are capable of switching between sexual and clonal reproduction. Among the vertebrates, virgin births have been documented in at least 80 taxonomic groups, including fish, amphibians, and reptiles. (see Wikipedia)
A few years back so far as anyone could say — and there were a few gaps in the data, notably the platypus — it was thought no mammalian species is capable of giving birth without a father.
Observations indicated that: First, a mammal's egg cell usually won't divide until it receives a signal from the sperm. Second, most mammalian eggs have only half the number of chromosomes necessary for development. If there isn't any sperm, the embryo will end up with only half the DNA it needs to survive.

Biologists believed that Parthenogenesis in humans could never produce viable embryos, because unfertilized eggs lack specific instructions about gene expression from the sperm.
So, if there's no sperm, certain genes will be over expressed, and the "embryo" will die when it is only about five days old.

By eliminating a pair of maternal genes, a Japanese team was able to create, via parthenogenesis, a viable baby mouse that was seemingly unaffected by its lack of paternal imprinting. Such recent findings have modified the “impossible” to “it's possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother but very unlikely.”

Electrical motivation
Use of an electrical or chemical stimulus can produce the beginning of the process of parthenogenesis in the asexual development of viable offspring.
(if electricity can do this how much more can the Holy Spirit, the Super Technologist?).

On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation(ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis.
On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis.

Summary
The idea that a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE is now out of date. Observations and investigations are proving otherwise.

A team led by Dr Tomohiro Kono from the Tokyo University of Agriculture called its fatherless mouse Kaguya, after a mythological Japanese princess.
One of the team's 28 mice through parthenogenesis survived to become a healthy adult female: a rate the researchers describe as "beyond expectations".

Conclusion
With the recent findings in biology and genetics, it is no longer rational to doubt the possibility of virgin birth. Possibility does not equate everyday occurrence. And rare does not imply never. 

“Of course, the Bible makes it clear that it was Almighty God, not some high-paid gynaecologist, who worked the details of Jesus' Divine-Human conception, i.e. “And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
   —Luke 1:35, KJV.
If credible people claim that it actually happened in Nazareth two thousand years ago we have no reasonable reason to doubt it—that God almighty could arrange something which science admits is possible.

[material for this piece was netted from various sites on the internet including: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1676240.stm ]