Mitochondrial Eve: Should Christians Be Worried Part III

1). All natures are communicated to offspring through begetting/generation. The nature of the begotten is the exact same as the nature of the one who begat. This has been well reasoned out by Aquinas himself. He wrote, “As in creatures, generation [i.e., begetting] is the only principle of communication of nature. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm#article4)” A human cannot generate a cat; a dog can’t generate a fish, a man cannot generate an angel, etc. So animal Adam and Eve would have been animals, as were their parents. They would have had sensitive/animal souls, not intellectual/rational souls.

2). Sensitive souls are not even capable of knowing and loving themselves, let alone knowing/loving the God who created them. As Augustine tells us, one cannot love what one does not know (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.htm). So the Holy Spirit would not/could not develop a bond of love with such an animal soul, nor dwell in one that is not capable of knowing and loving (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 93, a. 2). Pre-fallen Adam and Eve were created perfectly in the image and likeness of God. Their corporeal and spiritual natures were in complete and perfect harmony. When they fell, their nature became corrupted. They were no longer in the perfect image and likeness of God. Thus, it was impossible for the Holy Spirit to dwell in any man (Adam) who was not a perfectly in the Imago Dei (image and likeness of God). You may be thinking that nothing is impossible for God, but you would be wrong. God cannot contradict His own essence. That would be a contradiction of Truth. God could not express/create a contradiction to His Truth. For example, God could not create evil—it is a contradiction/total absence of Truth. God would not be God if he were able to create/express a contradiction.

The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a disordered nature. This is exactly why the Holy Spirit departed from our First Parents immediately after their sin. Why they lost Supernatural grace. When the Holy Spirit departed, Supernatural Grace was lost to them. Without this internal indwelling, the only type of grace available to fallen man would occur from the outside in—through Actual Grace. This type of grace is external to us, and is a result of the power of the Holy Spirit, which does not require an indwelling to communicate Actual grace. The Holy Spirit did not return to dwell in any man until Jesus redeemed him and established his Church (Jn 7:39).

Consequently, if a fallen rational man, whose corrupted nature produced a corrupted image and likeness of God, cannot be dwelt within by the Holy Spirit, so much more the case for an animal Adam who is not even remotely in the image and likeness at all, let alone imperfectly. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Supernatural grace, a necessary prerequisite for this unnatural transformation of a hominin, could not happen. For any attempt to make this false hypothesis true, it would require one to employ circular logic, which is false logic. To suggest that the Holy Spirit could dwell in an animal, is to commit heresy.

3). The Holy Spirit could not have been nonchalantly breathed into animal A & E by God because they were not generated/begotten as persons in the image and likeness of God (see #2). To assert otherwise is to engage in heresy, as was already stated in #2. It is important to note what the International Theological Commission tells us, the Imago Dei resides in the whole man, body and spiritual soul[21] (See also #5a below). Consequently, both body and animal soul (the substantial form of an animal body) would, either together or separately, not be capable of receiving the gift (via the Holy Spirit) of becoming a rational human beings (possessing a spiritual soul) made in the image and likeness of God. No Imago Dei, no Supernatural Grace.

4). The “breathed in” Holy Spirit does not change a pre-existing nature (pre-existing through conception/generation) into a different, higher or lower, nature. I am not aware of that occurring anywhere in Scripture. To avoid possible confusion, one must be aware of the following: without a solid philosophical background, one might confuse annihilation with substantial change; transforming from actuality to potentiality in, say, prime matter. In fact, according to Aquinas, an animal soul is not directly given by God. A sensitive (animal) soul is not subsistent, i.e., able to exist independently from the animal body. The sensitive soul is communicated via the semen during the fertilization process of the animal egg (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 118, a. 1).

In his reply to Objection 4, Aquinas makes some interesting statements. He writes:

In perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter [i.e., organic tissue] is provided by the female.

His interpretation reflects the lack of biological knowledge available at the time of Aquinas’ writings. The fertilized egg from which the foetal matter of all sensitive souls comes from a recombination of the chromosomes from both parents. However, the current scientific understanding is that much of the epigenetic information is primarily passed on by the mothers egg.[22]

5). To accomplish what Kemp and Austriaco are proposing, the animal nature of animal Adam & Eve would have had to been annihilated—reduced to nothingness—uncreated. After all, it would be impossible for Adam & Eve to each have two completely separate natures simultaneously. Remember, God created by fiat. All creation took substantial form immediately when the Father said, Let it be. Thus, there can be no such thing as two separate natures existing simultaneously in the eternal now. It is a contradiction. Unfortunately, for those particular hypotheses, annihilation creates a whole new level of very serious theological problems.

Aquinas tells us, “Grace does not destroy [annihilate] nature but perfects it.”

According to Connie Rossini, “St. Albert the Great says that ‘grace builds on nature,’ they mean that grace presupposes a rational animal as the recipient.” Therefore, if through grace (and it would absolutely require the communication of grace to accomplish it), turning animal Adam into rational Adam would, in fact, destroy/annihilate the animal nature. Using Grace to elevate a rational man to the nature of an angel would, in fact, destroy/annihilate rational man’s human nature.[23]

5a). The sensitive (animal) soul is non-subsistent (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 118, a. 1). Therefore it is likely that the annihilation of it would have also resulted in the annihilation of the genetic material as well. It is not the same as a rational human, where the body dies but the intellectual soul (which is subsistent) lives forever. Even if the genetic material of animal Adam were not annihilated, it would simply be a collection of dead cells with no substantial form. So, now we are absent both an irrational soul and an irrational body, within which to breathe a rational soul.  Hmm! I see a problem here. Don’t forget, the image of God lies in the whole man—body and spiritual soul.

5b). As I said earlier, there is no mention in Scripture, or in any Magisterial writing, that demonstrates the annihilation of one nature, after which it is replaced by a different higher or lower nature. In fact, there is Magisterial evidence contradicting it.

Scripture tells as that God turns dust into gnats (Ex 8:16-17). Wouldn't that be an annihilation of geological dust? No it would not. The dust is not annihilated. It is prime matter that became incorporated into the DNA of the gnat. Remember, DNA is the dust of the earth from which all organic matter is formed.

5c). Scripture and the Summa tell us that God does not annihilate anything. From the Summa we read:

Now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated.  . . . Moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness [emphasis added] of God are manifested by the preservation of things in existence [therefore annihilation of a nature would be contrary to God’s perfect goodness]. Wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated.  . . . That things are brought into existence from a state of non-existence, clearly shows the power of Him Who made them; but that they should be reduced to nothing would hinder that manifestation, since the power of God is conspicuously shown in His preserving all things in existence, according to the Apostle: “Upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3) . . . and “I have learned that all the works that God hath made continue forever [Eccl 3:14]” (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 104, a. 4).

To put it another way, all of creation is the expression of the goodness and the perfections of God. God says in Genesis that all of his creation is good. In God, good means absolutely perfect—cannot be made more or less perfect. To annihilate one of his creatures (which a good God created as perfectly good) in order to replace it with something better is to imply that God needed an eraser; that his “original” creation was not good enough, so it needed to be re-made better. We would be forced to say that the power of evil is more powerful than that of a Good God. That would be an additional heresy.

6). Here is a further problem with the Kemp and Austriaco hypotheses. St. Hildegard of Bingen wrote:

When God said, “Let it be done!” things were enclosed at once within their forms, just as the divine providence had seen them in an incorporeal way before time was.[24]

Reason 1: “According to theistic evolution, the lower (i.e., less perfect) cause can lead to the higher effect (i.e., more perfect). But in Aquinas’s view, no being can convey more act [understood as any kind of perfection or realization] than it possesses.”[26]

Reason 2: “The second reason theistic evolution contradicts Aquinas’s doctrine is that it presupposes that the nature (or the substantial form) of a living being can be changed into a different nature by an accidental change. This, however, is impossible in Aquinas’s view: accidental change can lead to only accidental changes, whereas a change of nature requires substantial change.”[27]

Reason 3: “The third reason is that theistic evolution presupposes that one nature can be the cause of another nature. In contrast, according to Aquinas no ‘perfect thing’ produces its own nature, but only participates in the nature that it inherits . . . Thus, a man cannot be a cause of mankind, a dog cannot cause dog’s nature, a cat, a cat’s nature, and so on. But if a being is not a cause of its own nature, much less can it produce a different nature.[28].”[29]

Reason 4: “The fourth reason is that according to Aquinas (following Aristotle) every composite thing has four causes: final, formal, efficient, and material. In theistic evolution, the efficient cause of species is the power of generation only guided by the final cause, who is God. Thus, even though theistic evolution involves final causality, it reduces ‘down’ efficient causation to accidental changes in matter and the operations of nature (medieval ‘movements of heavens’). And, according to Aquinas, this kind of cause cannot generate new natures (as was shown in the third problem) . . . And since it is formal cause (not matter), which produces the substantial form, theistic evolution lacks the formal cause, which is reduced ‘up’ to the final cause alone. Therefore, theistic evolution lacks both formal cause and efficient cause.”[30]

Reason 5: “The fifth reason is that, according to Aquinas, God wanted different degrees of perfection in nature. This happens among different species, as well as within one organism—among its organs . . . Hence according to Aquinas, things less perfect and more perfect exist for the sake of the greatest perfection of the whole material world. This order is intended by God . . . And this is contrary to the evolutionary view of nature, in which each part requires continual change toward greater perfection in ‘struggle for life’ and ‘survival of the fittest.’ ”[31]

1). There are only two possibilities for Adam and Eve. Either an immaculate conception occurred (which is impossible and would violate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary which states that she is the only Immaculate Conception), or they would have to have been made from some other genetic matter—but not through conception. If the former were even possible, it would still had to have occurred through an annihilation, which would mean that a continuing succession of annihilations would be needed, because the only beings involved in the conceiving of animals are animals. Consequently, we would be faced with a never-ending circle of conception followed by annihilation.

2). The other possibility involves two sub-options. First, creation from literal geological dust. Second, formation through the use of pre-existing genetic material, such as a donor stem cell; such as I have suggested from the very beginning in my two-part blog on mitochondrial Eve and Genesis.

1. Turning dust into gnats (Ex 8:16-17).

2. Turning stones into bread (Lk 4:3; Mt 4:3). Note: Satan is evil but not stupid. He wouldn’t waste time tempting Jesus to do what he couldn’t do.

3. Commanding stones to become children (rational human beings) of Abraham (Mt 3:9; Lk 3:8).

4. Turning water into wine in Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

Some might say Jesus created the wine ex nihilo. But that would contradict Aquinas’ teaching regarding Genesis 1-2.[32] One might assume Jesus used grape sediment already present in the six stone jars. But that would violate Jewish purity Laws.[33] The presence of any organic matter, such as grape sediment, would have rendered the water and the priest who blessed it ritually impure. Jesus exercises control of the grape’s genetic function, rendering them “good/the best” for producing wine. See “The Wedding Feast at Cana: Part I of III.” The six jars were hewn from stone because only stone would not defile the water.[34] Thus, Jesus must[35] have formed the wine from the dust/stone of the earth. The origin of the stone particles could have been units of stone separated from the jar itself or from water drawn from the spring or cistern. These particles could then have undergone a second miracle, such as the multiplication of fish and loaves (See 1 Kgs 17:8–16, 2 Kgs 4:1–7, Mt 15:32–39, Mk 8:1–10, and more).

1) Created from primordial dust of the earth, but, once again, that would contradict the explicit writings of Scripture related to Eve’s relationship to Adam, Jesus, Dogmas of Original Sin, man’s Redemption, and biblical genealogies.[39]

2) Eve was created exactly as described by God in Gen 1-2. She was formed from the genetic material existing within Adam’s rib. I believe the literal and literalistic interpretations of her creation are one and the same. Lte’s examine this further.

Each passage in Genesis 1 and 2 that describes the creation of a genetic organism contains about six to ten words, twenty if one counts the summation in Gen 2:19. Adam’s creation took only ten words (considering his importance, one would expect the description of his creation to contain the highest word count, but no). In sharp contrast, God used ~one hundred fifteen words in Genesis 2:21-23 (the number will vary based on the translation used) to describe the biology behind Eve’s being built from Adam’s rib. If born of hominin parents, there would have been no need to use ~eleven times as many words to describe Eve’s creation.

It thus follows that God actively intervened in her formation and wanted the reader to know it. Consistent with Aquinas’ hermeneutic, Scripture reveals the dust of the earth to be the material from which Eve was formed (i.e., built using the wording used in Gen 1:22 DRA; cf. Gen 1:27, 2:7) and the process by which it was accomplished.

Why would God use so many words to describe Eve’s creation? Hypothetically, to . . .

1) To further enlighten us as to the deeper meaning of Gen 1:26-27, 2:21-23, and make clear his active intervention in Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib;

2) Ensure the Hebrews did not believe Adam and Eve were born from hominin parents, thus clarifying the necessity for biblical genealogies;

3) Create Adam and Eve in the perfect image of a Trinitarian God[40]—created with the complementarity necessary for fruitful spiritual and material Love[41] and;

4) To make Man’s first parents a perfect one flesh, nuptial,  covenant of salt relationship, par excellence.[42]

1) He was created directly from primordial dust. This option is certainly available to God since He specifically said he could in Scripture passages cited previously.

2) However, He could created Adam using preexisting genetic material, such as a male hominin’s totipotent or pluripotent stem cell. Note that each individual cell would not be considered the substantial form of an individual being’s body, especially so with embryonic stem cells.

This scenario would could comport, in part, with Cann et al.’s research regarding mitochondrial DNA. This is especially so since research has shown that paternal mtDNA can in fact exist in the fertilized egg cell. However, equally important is the scientific realization that light plays a role in all cell division and differentiation.[42B] We have already provided a concrete example of the Holy Spirit’s ability to manipulate cellular function, i.e., miracles of the heart and Jesus’ conception.

Are Scientists More Powerful Than God?

1) Grown human intestines for transplantation in mice[43],

2) Grown a fully functional thymus[44],

3) Grown a tiny, rudimentary kidney similar to that seen during fetal development[45],

4) Generated ovarian follicles from mouse pluripotent stem cells[46] and;

5) “Reprogrammed” adult somatic/stem cells, such as those found in the rib, to become induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.[47]

1) Sheep[48],

2) Pigs[49],

3) Camels[50], and

4) Rabbits.[51]

1) Liebmann, J., M. Born, and V. Kolb‐Bachofen, “Blue-light irradiation regulates proliferation and differentiation in human skin cells,” The Journal of investigative dermatology 130, no. 1 (2009): 259-69, https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2009.194.

2) Kao, Wei-Zhen, Huai-Ching Hsieh, Yi-Ju Lee, Jin-Yu Su, P. Shen, and An-Chi Wei, “Enhancing human-induced pluripotent stem cell proliferation and cardiac differentiation through 810-nm photobiomodulation,” Lasers in Medical Science 41 (2026): https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-026-04821-8. Note that this study is highly applicable to STOSS assertions that Eve was formed from Adam’s stem cells.

3) Pinto, H., Paloma Goñi Oliver, and E. Sánchez-Vizcaíno Mengual, “The Effect of Photobiomodulation on Human Mesenchymal Cells: A Literature Review,” Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 45 (2021): 1826–1842, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02173-y.

4) Emelyanov, A., and V. V. Kiryanova, “Photomodulation of Proliferation and Differentiation of Stem Cells By the Visible and Infrared Light,” Photomedicine and Laser Surgery 33 (2015): 164–174, https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2014.3830.

5) Chunyan, Yutong Ye, Xinyu Shi, Na Li, Yufei Chen, Xiafei Shi, and Hongli Chen, “Photobiomodulation promotes osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and increases P-Akt levels in vitro,” Scientific Reports 15 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02428-7.