Are Adam & Eve our First and Only Parents

Atheists Pg > Atheists Bible Challenge

by Stephen Michael Leininger

STOSS Books

Posted: 01/01/2018

Updated: 04/17/2026

Does Science Disprove Adam and Eve’s Creation Account in Scripture?

This article is basically a re-post of Part II of the blog post titled, Mitochondrial Eve: Should Christians Be Worried? However, since atheists attempt to use science to debunk the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation, it is also being included in the Atheist Pages Section of this website. It is also just one of very many examples of why the Bible is the most advanced biological science book ever written. To be clear, it is not written in textbook form, but it is most definitely an applied sciences book. Scripture employs phenomenological language to convey scientific mysteries in a way most people can understand.

As a quick refresher, Part I of the Mitochondrial Eve three-part blog series focuses on the necessary precursors to a fuller understanding of current mtDNA research in light of the Genesis account of creation in Scripture. Part I uses Scripture to show that the account of Eve’s creation in Genesis should be interpreted literally and historically accurate. Thus informed, we now endeavor to answer the following two questions: First, should Christians be worried by the conclusions reached in the research at hand? Second, does the science behind mitochondrial Eve (mtEve) refute the Bible account of Adam and Eve’s creation?

In Part III of the blog series, a deeper look at the biblical controversy surrounding mtEve and the heresies and/or problematic theological interpretations it could promote. We intend to show one example of the logical traps scientists can fall into when they fail to incorporate Scripture into the equation during the interpretation phase of their research.

Incidentally, two examples, out of thirty-four plus scientific mysteries hidden in Scripture by God, are available on this website. They help show that Scripture could not have been written by human authors (fishermen, tentmakers, tax collectors, and so forth) without the inspiration of a Divine Intelligence. As it happens, both examples are related to this blog post. One discusses Eve’s creation from a scientific viewpoint and is located here. The other is located here.

mtEve Research Details

Researchers sought to determine when and where the woman from whom all human populations (including modern man) descended lived. To arrive at their conclusions, they used only mitochondrial DNA from 147 people across five geographical regions: Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Aboriginal New Guinea.[1] Furthermore, as will be discussed later, the model they created for the study contained serious design flaws.

What Is Mitochondrial DNA? How Does It Differ From Nuclear DNA?

To begin with, ‘nuclear DNA’ is the DNA that is located within the nucleus of every human cell. Nuclear DNA contains approximately 30,000 genes in every molecule of the DNA polymer. By comparison, mtDNA contains only thirty-seven genes.[2] Interestingly, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is more similar to bacterial DNA than it is to human DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is located outside the nucleus, in the watery part of the cell, called the cytoplasm. Mitochondrial DNA is an organelle. Organelles are specialized structures within each cell that are dedicated to certain functions. They are usually enclosed within their own lipid membrane (resembling the outermost cell membrane).[3] Incidentally, cell membranes are mainly lipids and proteins, none of which are considered dust or salt.[3-a] What is the special process reserved for mtDNA? The mtDNA organelle performs several functions within the cell. Two of which are: 1) converting food into energy, which is usable by the cell, and 2) the regulation of cell death (apoptosis).[4]

In human reproduction, the gametes, i.e., the sperm cell of the father and the egg cell of the mother, each contain 23 chromosomes, which together form a complete set of nuclear DNA. When the egg becomes fertilized, the two sets of DNA combine through a process aptly called recombination. Both the sperm cell and the egg cell contain mtDNA. However, the resulting offspring (i.e., the fertilized egg), regardless of gender, gets its mtDNA primarily, but not only (see cited research further down), from the mother.[5] So what happens to the father’s mtDNA? It was up until recently thought that paternal mtDNA did not survive the fertilization process and that immediately upon entering the egg, the father’s mtDNA is attacked by enzymes within the fertilized egg cell, which kills the mtDNA of the sperm cell. Most of the mitochondria are located in the tail of the sperm cell. The sperm loses its tail upon fertilization of the egg. While there are hypotheses about the phenomenon, it remains a mystery exactly why and how this occurs.[6] Recent studies have shown this assumption to be false.

Why use only mitochondrial DNA?

In their research, Cann et al. used mtDNA because it does not undergo recombination, which is necessary to combine the two separate sets of chromosomes received from the parents. Recombination could produce genetic mutations not attributable to normal evolutionary processes, thereby tainting the ‘molecular clock’ used to estimate mtEve’s placement in historical time. The passing of mtDNA from mother to offspring results in only minor, random mutations in the mtDNA sequence.[7] Furthermore, there are multiple identical copies of mtDNA in each of the mother’s cells. Researchers believed that the lack of recombination would result in greater mtDNA sensitivity across generations in small communities, which would then spread to larger populations.[8]

Cann et al. estimated that two to four percent of mtDNA mutations occur every million years.[9] Unfortunately, for Cann et al., the molecular clock they envisioned was not representative of real world facts. An additional problem with their research, Cann et al. used a single criterion in their study design that led to significant issues in their conclusions. They assumed that all mtDNA came from the maternal side of the offspring’s parents. They also assumed that all the mtDNA within each individual was identical. This is the first assumption we will focus on later in this blog post.

Results of Research and Implications for Bible Believers

The data gathered from their research led other researchers to originally estimate that mtEve lived in Africa between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago. In 1990, scientists modified that estimate to approximately 170,000 years ago. Further adjustments have been made following two studies published in 2013. Both studies incorporate estimates of when Y-chromosome Adam (hereafter referred to as Y-Adam) and mtEve lived. Carlos Bustamante and his research team at the Stanford University School of Medicine estimate that Y-Adam lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago.[10] They also estimated that mtEve lived between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago.[11] Bustamante stated that the idea of everyone descending from a common set of ancestors (as in biblical Adam and Eve) is not true. A team led by Paolo Francalacci at the University of Sassari, Italy, estimated that Y-Adam lived between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago,[12] which is not even within range of the potential ages for mtEve.

By now, I’m sure you can start to see some potential problems for Bible believers as a result of extrapolations of the research. I have been amazed at the number of well-intentioned Christians I have encountered who are adopting heretical beliefs as a result of their misinterpretations of this research. Let’s emphasize something from the start. The scientific community that refers to research on the so-called Y-chromosome Adam and mtEve is NOT referring to the “persons” of Adam and Eve. In other words, Bible Eve =/= mtEve. They are referring to the earliest genetically common ancestors of us, people created in the image and likeness of God.

What are some of the theological and exegetical problems arising from this research? The following are a few examples:

1) The very significant difference in the historical time ranges between the existence of Y-Adam and mtEve can make it seem as though the biblical Adam and Eve came from two different lineages.
2) As a result of #1 above, the interpretation that Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib is merely fable/story telling as opposed to the truth, which is that it was written in mythic language. As a result, they are tricked into believing our first parents were likely covenantally married.
3) The erroneous interpretations of the research promote the belief that biblical Adam and Eve were not two particular persons, but likely representative of a small group of people located in a particular region of the world.
4) It could be believed that Adam and Eve were real persons, but existed at different times and never even met each other.

Polygenism

Unfortunately, many well-intentioned people believe that when a seeming conflict arises between what contemporary science teaches and what the Church/Bible teaches, then scientism dictates that science trumps theology. This is particularly relevant when we try to understand the Genesis account of the origins/creation of man, i.e., Adam and Eve. As a consequence of this seeming contradiction, armchair theologians will engage in intellectual/exegetical gymnastics in an effort to “make” the interpretation of the Bible “fit” the science, even though, historicall speaking, scientific hypotheses have proven to be wrong. The three-part blog series on Mitochondrial Eve show that this exegetical gymnastics is unnecessary as long as we don’t place artificial, finite limits on the capabilities of an all-powerful and infinite God. Let’s talk a little bit about polygenism.

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, polygenism could lead to heresy relative to two dogmas of the Church. Regarding polygenism versus monogenism, Ott writes,

[T]he various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first [rational, i.e., created in the image and likeness of God—SML] human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the entire [rational] human race (monogenism). The teaching of the unity of the [rational] human race is not a dogma, but it is a necessary presupposition [emphasis SML] of the dogma of Original sin and Redemption. . . . The encyclical “Humani Generis”, promulgated by Pius XII (1950), rejects polygenism on account of its incompatibility with the revealed doctrine of original sin (D 3028).[13]

Potentially, there are many more problems, but these are enough to demonstrate the bad fruit that can result from incorrect extrapolations of the research. This could further degrade the trustworthiness of Scripture for both believers and non-believers alike. The following link is just one example of a multitude of online sources that, by falling for the Out-of-Africa interpretation of studies, are filling the heads of Christians with reasons to believe the Bible is in error, is unscientific, and is teaching falsehoods.

From the papal encyclical, Humani Generis, we read:

When, however, there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion [emphasis mine] which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true [rational] men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose about original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own [cf. Rom. 5:12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, 5, can. 1-4]. (#37)

The following, I believe, is how seriously Pope Pius XII intended the first two sentences of #37 of Humani Generis to be taken. He writes,

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority . . . But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (Humani Generis, n. 20). In other words, the “question open to discussion” in #20 is the “conjectural opinion [polygenism as defined in n. 37] . . . the faithful cannot embrace.”

Let’s examine polygenism from the standpoint of Scripture. We read,

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned …. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass [not several trespasses, as would be the case if polygenism was correct-SML] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:11, 19), [and] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).

As Msgr. Charles Pope tells us, “Scripture also affirms our connection to the one man, Adam, when it records that God sent one, Jesus Christ, as the New Adam. This sets up a parallelism: One Adam, One New Adam. God did not send a committee, or a squadron to save us, which would be the parallel for polygenism and/or group sin.” His article can be read here. This parallelism (comparing and contrasting an individual person and act) would fail, and St. Paul would be misleading us (given his choice of wording) by comparing and contrasting an individual person performing a singular act on one side, with groups engaging in multiple acts on the other.

This same individual parallelism is used to compare and contrast the person of Eve with the person of Jesus’ mother, Mary. In The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), it is written, “Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, ‘The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.’ Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her ‘the Mother of the living,’ and still more often they say: ‘death through Eve, life through Mary’ ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 56). Describing Mary as the Mother of the living is significant. It is a parallel to how Adam described his individual “helpmate”, Eve, in Gen. 3:20.

Right now, you may be thinking: Oh, great! Since science is always right, Christians who believe Adam and Eve are the first and only parents of all man created in the image and likeness of God are going to look like idiots. My response: not to worry. Read on. There is much more to be said on the matter of polygenism, but I will save that for a different article.

Why Does This Research Leads to Faulty Interpretations

According to Professor John Ioannidis, the majority, or even the vast majority, of all modern published research contains false findings.[14] Unfortunately, false findings lead to incorrect conclusions that can radically affect our beliefs and actions. Two of the big reasons cited by Ioannidis for these research errors are research bias and/or poor research design.[15] False assumptions would fit into the latter category. This lack of reliability is true even of the gold standard of research, i.e., peer-reviewed studies. The reliability problems with peer-review can be seen here, here, and here.

Below is an article that demonstrates the necessity of scientific organizations such as PSI. Principia Scientific International (PSI) is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. It is a ‘Community Interest Company’ [similar to a 501(c)(3) in the U.S.] overseen and regulated by the UK Government’s Companies House. According to their website, they:

Serve the public interest in providing educational resources freely in the fields of scientific inquiry. Principia Scientific International CIC is about transparency and truth; the only publishing international science association shunning political advocacy and defending the traditional scientific method.

PSI’s review process, i.e., ‘PROM’ (short for: ‘peer-review in open media’) works by PSI inviting and engaging independent third party input in the peer-review process.

One Biomedical Scientist wrote:

Biomedical research papers are being published in which the abstract, the discussion section, and even the title contradict the content within the paper.
This is unlikely to be happening because the authors don’t understand their own data. It’s more likely that the authors are being pressured by their financial backers and the editorial staff of journals to reach conclusions that advance the prevailing narrative.
It’s a well thought out deception that uses seemingly intellectual analysis to lead the undiscerning reader into believing the wrong conclusion. Skewing statistics is easy to accomplish simply by using the wrong statistical test, using a weak test when a stronger one should apply, or just about any other trick to misrepresent the data.
Medical journals have become financially dependent on their advertisers, which are almost exclusively the big pharmaceutical companies. With enough money, they can buy a scientific study that says what they want it to say.
Sometimes these studies are “ghost” written by people working for industry with credentialed unscrupulous scientists and doctors names misattributed as authors when in fact they did none of the writing.
The pharmaceutical industry uses its profits to control biomedical science at every level, from researchers to journal editors, to government regulatory agencies, and to the media who are supposed to interpret science for the public.[15A]

In the U.S. alone, Big Pharma contributed to the 2020 campaigns of: 1) around 2,400 state lawmakers; 2) 72 members of the U.S Senate, and; 3) 302 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In aggregate, 66% of the U.S. Congress received contributions from Big Pharma.[15B]

Pressure is being placed on independent researchers by the journal editors and peer reviewers, many of whom have ties to Big Pharma. Valid studies, honestly reported, can be rejected for publication if they convey a message that threatens corporate profits. Many scientific authors know how difficult it is to get a paper through peer review at most “reputable” medical journals when the results are not in line with the official narrative.
Many biomedical scientists have become shills for the pharmaceutical companies. Rigging clinical trials the old-fashioned way is expensive, time-consuming, uncertain, and recent legislation makes it more difficult. Sometimes the truth emerges even if a study is designed to hide it. Even a study that is designed to fail might succeed when the inconvenient truths are stubborn enough.
It’s easier to report the actual results and then tack on an abstract and a discussion section that convey the right message, regardless of the data in the main body of the article. This can then be used in the “citation bluff” fraud, that depends on people not carefully reading supposed supportive evidence, to perpetuate the false narrative.
Often the cited evidence in support of a particular narrative doesn’t really support the narrative being advanced. In fact, the supposed supportive evidence can sometimes even completely contradict the narrative being pushed.
This is something to bear in mind the next time you get into an argument with someone demanding to see peer-reviewed evidence and rejecting any evidence that has not been peer-reviewed regardless of its merits.
Journals and the peer-review process have been corrupted by powerful vested interests.[15C]

Let’s look at the crisis of irreproducibility in science:

It has been an open secret for some time that there is a crisis of irreproducibility of scientific studies in medicine and other fields. No less a figure than the [former] Director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote that, “the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled. This has compromised the ability of today’s researchers to reproduce others’ findings.” For example, the National Association of Scholars reports, “In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 ‘landmark’ studies in hematology and oncology, but could only replicate 6 (11%).”[15D] In 2015 an article was published in Science in which there was an attempt to replicate 100 studies from three well-known psychology journals [emphasis SML] in 2008.[15E] In the original studies, nearly all had produced statistically significant results, whereas in the study replications, only a little over a third produced similar significant results.[15F]

Another problem with the research design is the a priori exclusion of any model that deals with the Scripture account of Adam and Eve's creation (see “Scientism” in the next paragraph). In the words of Dr. Robert Carter (PhD in Marine Biology): “I believe it is entirely unfair to exclude the creation model without ever considering what the implications of the model would be (in scientific terms, they failed to propose a null hypothesis that could be ruled out by the evidence.”[15G]

The Highly Questionable Out-of-Africa Hypothesis Based on Cann et. al.

As a consequence of Scientism’s biased viewpoint against Scripture, forming a valid null hypothes (H₀) was eliminated. Thus, the validity of H₀ could not be accurately tested for statistical significance (i.e., p=<0.05) concerning the Scripture account of rational man’s creation. As a consequence, the need for a statistically significant alternative hypothesis (H₁) could not be determined.

As a result of Cann’s first modeling assumption above, all mtDNA used in the research came from the maternal side of the offspring’s parents. Unfortunately, they completely ignored the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s creation. Consequently, they produced conclusions that led to heresy. In the traditional sense, Adam and Eve had no parents. Furthermore, their assumption about where rational modern man’s human mtDNA comes from is also wrong. It is incredible to me the lengths that sincere people will go to force theology to fit fad/bad/agenda-science—even if the scientific interpretation or method is wrong.

Scientism is the belief that all truth about the material world comes through scientific research and discovery and only through material science. They believe religion has no part in determining the truth.[16] Many (if not the vast majority) of the adherents of scientism are atheists or agnostics. If there is a conflict between scientific theory and Scripture, they believe Scripture is, de facto wrong. In a sense, their intellect has become self-imprisoned within a box labeled, “Big Bang and By-Products Only: God NOT Allowed.” This self-imposed intellectual imprisonment does not allow them to even consider God’s intervention into, and supremacy over, all that exists. It was Albert Einstein who said, “Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.”[17] I would add to that meaning by substituting the word religion, with the word Scripture.

I apply Einstein’s quote to research performed by Cann et. al. that led to the Out-of-Africa hypothesis as it relates to Adam and Eve. I am not trying to make the case that their research is completely wrong, but scientists are now beginning to question their model as it relates to its mitochondria assumptions. Because of these shortcomings, any theological extrapolations derived from their research in question (by researchers, believers, and unbelievers alike) are not reliable enough to impact the hermeneutics of biblical exegesis. More on that below.

One of the assumptions researchers made in designing their research model is this: all mtDNA in their studies came from the maternal side of the offspring’s parents. Most in the science community believed and publicized the interpretation of Cann’s study to mean zero mtDNA from the father is present in the fertilized egg. They completely ignored the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s creation. Because of that, they produced conclusions that can—and do—lead to problematic theology. Adam and Eve did not have parents in the traditional sense (further explanation to follow). Furthermore, their assumption about where all rational modern human mtDNA came from is also wrong. From a theological standpoint and as a result of research bias, they may well have pinpointed the common ancestor for the pre-existing genetic material from which God instantaneously formed Adam, but they missed the boat concerning Eve. Eve did not have an earthly mother.

Many have employed the results of researcher’s Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson (CSW) to support the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and the natural/materialistic Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution of modern man. Given the profound impact of their hypotheses on biblical exegesis, the veracity of their research as a hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis 2’s Creation account must be impeccable. But was it? One design assumption critical to their conclusions was that all mammalian offspring inherit their mitochondrial DNA solely from their mother with no contribution from the father.[18] Roger Lewin[19] supports the CSW claims. Other unsupported and contested claims include, “Molecular biology is now a major source of quantitative and objective information about the evolutionary history of the human species.”[20]

Importantly, based on other scientific research, their CSW’s conclusions are becoming increasingly questionable. Fleming et al. write, “In almost all species, the entire sperm, including the midpiece mitochondrial sheath, enters the egg at fertilization. Subsequently, tail and midpiece structures can be traced for several division cycles.”[21] The only known exception to this is the Chinese hamster, Cricetulus griseus.[22]

Other research indicates that paternal mtDNA is present, albeit in significantly lower quantities than maternal mitochondria—by a factor of at least 1,000[23]—but it is present, nevertheless. Thus, it introduces a significant reasonable doubt about the universality of CSW’s conclusions. Hence, it is not reliable enough to use as a hermeneutic for interpreting the Word of God in Genesis 1-2.

Research conducted before and after CSW’s research contradicts their assumptions.[24] The “error of obligatory maternal inheritance of mtDNA in humans appears to arise entirely from approaches using [Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism].”[25] However, when using the Polymerase Chain Reaction method, paternally inherited mtDNA molecules were detected in mice at a frequency of 1 in 10,000 relative to the maternal contributions.[26] They concluded: “Paternal inheritance of mtDNA also means that mtDNA phylogenies are not exclusively matriarchal.”[27]

Ankel-Simmons and Cummins warn that assuming paternal mtDNA is absent in the fertilized egg due to tail loss during sperm penetration is a false assumption. Basing evolutionary theories on obligatory maternal inheritance of mitochondria is highly unreliable.[28]

Zinc-based Sark of Life

Integral to our understanding of the non-human soul and, potentially/hypothetically the electromagnetic spark spirituallizd by the Breath of God, is the zinc-based spark generated during egg fertilization by the sperm cell. Science has discovered a zinc-induced spark of electromagnetic energy emitted when a sperm cell enters an egg cell in all female mammals. This spark is not coincidental with fertilization, but a direct result of it. Zinc sparks are explosive releases of zinc ions (Zn²⁺) from mammalian eggs upon fertilization. The spark acts as a “switch” that releases the egg from metaphase II arrest, allowing the mature egg to continue its meiotic and miotic cell division and differntiation towards the embryonic state. Of note, it is the vegetative, sensible, and human soul that is the substantial form of their respective body. In fact, Aquinas believed the mammal sperm carries the soul, the substantial form, of an animal.[28A] Since the science shows that paternal mtDNA is present in the female egg for several cell divisions (thus, after the zinc spark), it is more than just a little likely that Eve could have been formed from one of Adam’s rib stem cells containing his paternal mtDNA. Thus allowing Eve to be called flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone (Gen 2:23).

The “spark” is triggered by calcium (Ca²⁺) oscillations as billions of zinc atoms are ejected through the egg cell membrane, thus reducing intracellular zinc content.[28B] The spark has been shown to block additional sperm from entering the egg cell by hardening the egg cell wall. The spark initiates the process of meiosis followed by mitosis.[28C]

The above interpretation is confirmed by the methods used in cloning animals. Since cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) removes sperm-mediated fertilization (i.e., Ca⁺²driven zinc-based spark), which normally triggers physiological activation of the fertilized egg, artificial activation is required. While there are at least five different artificial means to trigger cell division, two are more popular.

1) Electrical stimulation that mimics the sperm activation discussed above.[28D]
2) Sequentially applying two consecutive stimuli, e.g., electric current or calcium (Ca) ionophore followed by other chemicals.[28E]

Note that both, to one degree or another, serve as a substitute for the naturally occurring sperm penetration.

The Creation of Adam and Eve

We have shown, using Scripture, that God tells us he can make organic living matter out of stone/dust. We mentioned that Jesus, Himself, was tempted by Satan to turn stone (which are merely larger sizes of dust) into bread—into organic matter. Otherwise, why would Satan bother to tempt him thusly? We know Jesus had the power to do this. And yet, when it comes to the story of Adam’s creation from dust and Eve’s creation from his rib, we can’t bring ourselves to believe that the Son of God could / would literally do this (remember that all of creation was made through the Son). We find it hard to believe that God is speaking literally when he describes Adam and Eve’s creation. That doubt is probably present because we think there is no concrete example of him doing so. Oh, but there is.

In John 2:6-11 we read, “Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.’ So they took it. … [The steward said] ‘Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.’” Almost everyone misses a very important fact contained in these words. What Jesus did in his very first public miracle, was to turn water, which has zero organic matter, i.e., DNA, into organic matter (wine) which does contain DNA. He accomplished it instantaneously. He did not do this from pre-existing grapes that had evolved over many generations of grapes. He created that particular DNA from nothing, ex nihilo. Not only did he create the grapes ex nihilo, he created them with a very specific genome (a genome that had not existed before—no two genomes are exactly the same); a very specific set of genes within the nucleus of the grape cells; a set of genes that produced “good wine.”

Now, if you’re thinking that the water might have contained a few grape cells, that assumption would be inconsistent with Jewish law. Leviticus 11:36 tells us, “Only a spring or a cistern holding water shall be ritually clean.” So water used for ritual purification had to be ritually, and literally, clean. Furthermore, remember the six stone jars. This, too, was an important part of the ritual purification jars at Cana. For only a stone water container is clean and doesn’t become ritually impure if it comes in contact with death (for example if a mouse is found dead in it). If it so happened that the water and/or any water container, other than a stone container, became unclean, then not only the water, but the priest who used it would become ritually unclean—a very big deal in Jewish Law.

Now, if a piece of the stone jar were to fall into the water, it would still be considered as ritually clean water. Remember, Scripture tells us that God could command stones to become children of God (Mt 3:9), dust into gnats (Ex 8:16-17), or stones into bread (Lk 4:3). God could have effortlessly turned dust into Adam and/or Eve. Scripture contains no lies. However, it was vital that Eve would be taken from out of the man, Adam.

These examples provide us with a small glimpse into why the deeper understanding of salt and dust in Scripture is so important. The Miracle at the wedding at Cana is Jesus (at the beginning of his mission, and through Mary’s intercession) revealing the entire purpose of his mission, as well as revealing to us what the consequences would be at the completion of that mission. Links to the three-part blog about the deeper meaning of the wedding at Cana can be found here. The incarnate Son of God is made from dust (stone) of the earth (Mary’s DNA). Jesus is the cornerstone of the New Covenant Temple (His resurrected and glorified body of dust / stone). Furthermore, through Baptism we become living stones built into that spiritual house … the only house where God dwelled and where, throughout biblical history, priests (both common—in the New Covenant—and ministerial) perform their duties (1 Pt. 2:4-5).

There were six stone containers—the number representing man in general, and Jesus, in particular. As St. Augustine tells us,

And not without reason is the number six understood to be put for a year in the building up of the body of the Lord [within the womb], as a figure of which He said that He would raise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For they said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building [Jn. 2:19-21].” And six times forty-six makes two hundred and seventy-six. And this number of days completes nine months and six days…in that number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected; which being destroyed by the suffering of death, He raised again on the third day. For “He spake this of the temple of His body,” as is declared by the most clear and solid testimony of the Gospel; where He said, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [Augustine, On the Trinity, IV, 5, n. 9].

For those who mistakenly believe that Adam and Eve were conceived by hominins and then “married,” think again. Animals don't get married, which means that Adam and Eve were both still in the state of Original Justice. Since we've already ruled out replacing the animal soul with the reception of rational soul. Why? Because God does not, and never will, annihilate anything he created good. The only other possibility is this, both Adam and Eve experienced an immaculate conception of a rational human being from from two animal parents. Hmm! Let's see what St. Maximilian Kolbe has to say about that.

He asked this internal question, “Who are you, O Immaculate Conception?” In response, he wrote: “Not God, for God has no beginning. Not Adam, made from the dust of the earth. Not Eve, drawn from Adam’s body. Nor is [Mary] the Incarnate Word who already existed from all eternity and who was conceived, but is not really a “conception.” Prior to their conception the children of Eve do not exist, hence they can more properly be called “conceptions”; and yet you, O Mary, differ from them too, because they are conceptions contaminated by original sin, whereas you are the one and only Immaculate Conception [emphasis SML]” [St. Maximillian Kolbe, Scritti di Massimiliano Kolbe, Rome, 1997, #1318].

According to Kolbe, Adam and Eve were not, could not, be conceived immaculately. That was reserved only for Mary. Adam and Eve were made / formed without sin, but not conceived without sin. The spiritual soul is the substantial form of the body. The soul forms the body. In order for the fertilized egg of animal hominins to conceive rational Adam and Eve, the rational soul would have to have been breathed into the egg immediately upon fertilization—upon conception. This would violate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (cf. Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus, #25). Actually, even this scenario could not occur without the annihilation of the animal nature of the fertilized egg. See Part III for more details, including Aquinas’ thoughts on when and how animals receive their animal souls.

In 1854, the Blessed Virgin Mary proclaimed to St. Bernadette Soubirous: “I am THE [SML] Immaculate Conception.” In the words of St. Maximilian, the Blessed Virgin is the Created Immaculate Conception, as the Holy Spirit is the Uncreated Immaculate Conception. In the words of St. Francis of Assisi, Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit [Jonathan Fleischmann, “Who Are You, O Immaculate Conception?” https://saintmaximiliankolbe.com/who-are-you-o-immaculate-conception/].

Let’s talk about Adam’s creation. To begin with, Adam could not have been created ex nihilo (out of nothing) because God tells us that Adam was made from the dust of the earth and to dust he will return. Furthermore, I do not recall anywhere in Scripture where God clearly created a material something from absolutely nothing (ex nihilo) after the “first day” of creation in Genesis. As I see it, there are two main possibilities concerning Adam’s creation, both of which would not contradict Church teaching. At this point, you might find it very helpful to read the page titled, “Is DNA in the Bible?”. The first possibility is this: God took actual dirt, clay, and/or mud from the ground and formed Adam. However, all of us are described as being made from dust of the earth—but we know this is not literalistically correct. After all, we got our dust from our parents—not from the dirt in our parent’s garden. So the literalistic interpretation of Adam’s creation is not, by necessity, the correct interpretation.

The second possibility is the one I believe is most likely. It is this: God took a stem cell or, perhaps, a germ-line cell from some other hominin male donor. With this material, he breathed the Breath of life into this non-differentiated stem cell prior to an animal soul was given it, and it began to grow and multiply as a man created in the image and likeness of God (because of the Breath of life). Because the spiritual soul is the substantial form of the body, the donor cell would begin to divide and differentiate as directed by a rational / spiritual soul—not a sensitive animal soul. Is this too difficult for God to accomplish? Previously, we described how God Himself revealed to us that He has the power to do this. Scripture contains many passages that tell us so. Science can already “grow” one animal from another animal’s cell. We call that cloning. This is not the same thing, but it’s close. Is man more powerful than God?

What does the Church say about this possibility? According to Pope Pius XII:

The Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from preexistent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that rational human [emphasis SML] souls are immediately created by God.[29]

The Church is not saying this is the way it happened; it is simply saying that the possibility would not be contrary to any Church doctrine, unlike theological polygenism—or modern day theological gymnastic-like attempts to redefine what constitutes monogenism.

As a consequence of this latter creation method, the mitochondrial DNA of early ancestors would be present in Adam’s cells because the donor’s cell would have contained it. It is important to note that, under this scenario, Adam would not have had any parents, either animal or rational. A donor of genetic material would not, in any sense of the word, be considered a parent of the recipient. There is no conjugal act—there is no begetting. It is Church teaching that Jesus is the prototype of all rational humans; it is not the reverse of that. Adam is not the prototype of Jesus. Would God the Father allow his Son to become incarnate from the ancestral line of two purely animal ancestors? Think about how utterly ridiculous that sounds.

Now let’s turn to Eve’s creation. I have long maintained that the scriptural description of Eve’s creation is both literally and historically accurate, i.e., she was taken and likely formed from the stem cells contained in Adam’s rib. I make, what I believe to be, a compelling case for this belief in: 1) the first half of Part I of this blog using Scripture; 2) an article about the creation of Eve from a scientific viewpoint here. If my hypothesis is correct, then Eve would have gotten her mitochondrial DNA directly from Adam, who would have gotten his mtDNA from so-called “mtEve,” (not the biblical person Eve) who is purported to be our common ancestor as identified by Cann et al. Because Eve’s creation would not have been from a fertilized egg, Adam's mtDNA would not have been destroyed by the woman's egg enzymes. A further advantage to this understanding of creation is this: there is no necessity for a dependent correlation between the timing of the existence of the two historical persons of Adam and of Eve on the one hand, and the historical timing of the existence of mtEve and Y-Adam on the other. Put another way, the Bible and science would not be in conflict if Adam and Eve (and, therefore, rational man) were created 100; 1,000; 50,000; or 200,000 years ago.

As far as I am able to reason, my hypothesis, as described above, is the only one that does not contradict the research conducted by Cann et al. while, at the same time, does not lead to a heretical or theologically problematic interpretation of Scripture. Thus, science, when properly interpreted, actually helps to prove that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Part III of this blog proves that all attempts to claim that Adam & Eve were born, not made, are false and contain at least two heresies.

Is Science Infallible?

Are scientists and the research they produce infallible? In short, no. In fact, not even close to infallible! Further, as has been touched upon earlier in the “Why Does This Research Leads to Faulty Interpretations” section, we have to be very careful about trusting scientific papers, especially in topics that some use to inject problematic theological into the Church. Even those that have been peer reviewed.

Echoing what was said in hat section, Jeanne Fahnestock writes:

In the last 20 years, two allied crises have erupted in academic and institutional science. The first, long developing but peaking recently, is the discovery that some unknown proportion of published science is faked or fraudulent and difficult to detect or prevent, a problem made worse by artificial intelligence (AI). The second is the replication crisis of the last 20 years, a heightened awareness that even reports neither faked nor fraudulent may nevertheless be irreplicable and misleading.[30]

Following are a few of the very many examples:

1) From Aristotle to 1609, scientists, including Galileo, based on their observations, believed that planets orbited the sun in circular orbits. It was in 1609 that Kepler showed that it was, in fact, an elliptical orbit.[31]

2) While Fr. Georges Lemaître first proposed the “Big Bang” in 1927, the theory did not gain credibility until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The CMB serves as the afterglow of the Big Bang and refutes the widely held scientific assumption, at least since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published in the mid-1850s, that the universe is eternal and static.[32]

3) In the 20th century, premature dismissals of well-supported ideas sometimes unjustly hindered scientific progress. Powell highlights two cases: a comet over 12,000 years ago that caused a cooling period leading to the extinction of the Clovis Paleo-Indian culture, and the theory of continental drift explaining the separation of continents.[33]
4) In the 1930s, Drosophila genetics produced a widely accepted but wrong conclusion because approximations gradually “hardened” into errors, even after consulting a famous mathematician. Debru writes:

The case of the soviet agronomist Trofim Lyssenko . . . [is] an example of pseudo-science resulting from his neglect of the basic epistemological norms of scientific research regarding reproducibility, deliberate ignorance of contrary results and requirements of proof, and finally of established fraud in overestimating results to the benefit of political power.[34]
A more recent example of scientific fraud comes from the hoax known as global warming, which was later rephrased to climate change because, in the perpetrators view, nobody can claim that climate does not change. Here are just a few of a mountain of examples: A) U.K. weather office caught deleting inconvenient climate data, B) More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate ‘emergency’ a myth, C) “After Nobel Prize Scientist Declares ‘There Is No Real Climate Crisis’–He is Abruptly Canceled for IMF Climate Talk: Claim,” D) A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect, E) A Short History Of Radiation Theories–What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?, F) Correcting Misinformation on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide; Pinatubo Study Phase 1 Report, and G) List of Articles by Just the Facts.

5) John C. Lennox wrote:

[A]s Professor Fred Hoyle, my cosmology teacher at Caltech assumed, the Universe is eternal [thus] the question of its creation does not arise.[35]

But Lennox adds:

Arno Penzias, who used the propitious position of the space-platform of earth to make the brilliant discovery of that ‘echo of the beginning’–the cosmic background microwave radiation–sums up the position as he sees it: ‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing [emphasis added], one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’[36]

The final nail to the atheistic belief that the universe is eternal and, therefore, not in need of a God, comes from the discovery of the second law of thermodynymics.
Bollore et al. continue where Lennox left off:

To understand these events, we have to go back to the discovery of the thermal death of the Universe. This theory, derived from the second principle of thermodynamics[emphasis added], had obvious metaphysical implications that, despite the scientific nature of the question, did not escape the attention of philosophers and ideologues.[37] . . .
[P]hysicist Ludwig Boltzmann had demonstrated that the Universe’s entropy—in other words, its loss of heat—increases with the passage of time, as coffee gradually cools in a mug. This observation necessarily leads in the very distant future to the “thermal death” of the Universe. The consequence of this phenomenon is therefore that the Universe cannot be eternal.[38] . . .
Beyond 10¹⁰⁰ years from now we arrive at the complete heat death of the Universe. Having reached a state of extreme dilation through its process of expansion, the Universe will reach a state of maximum entropy that implies the end of all thermodynamic activity. Then what is quite justly called the “Dark Era” will begin, when mostly photons will be left, floating in a gigantic, ever-colder space tending towards absolute zero.[39]

I am not suggesting that flawed science is always intentional. Many researchers genuinely believe they have conducted their work with careful rigor. The difficulty lies in the fact that human beings cannot fully comprehend the entirety of creation as made by God. As a result, we are all susceptible to the familiar idea that “a little knowledge can be dangerous.” When comparing what humanity currently understands about the six days of creation with the vast and complex information associated with the Big Bang, it becomes evident how partial knowledge can lead to risky scientific conclusions.

This issue becomes even more pronounced when a scientist, as a matter of a priori belief, rejects belief in God and does not seek guidance from the Holy Spirit in their reasoning. In this way, we mirror Eve in the Garden—accepting partial truths and then forming misguided and malinformed conclusions based on incomplete understanding.

Too see a list of all blogs and website Pages with descriptions and links, go here: https://www.stossbooks.com/index.php.

Endnotes:

[1]. Dorothy R. Haskett, “‘Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution’ (1987), by Rebecca Louise Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Charles Wilson,” (The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona Board of Regents, 2014), https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan. October 10, 2014.

[2]. Dorothy R. Haskett, “‘Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution’ (1987), by Rebecca Louise Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Charles Wilson,” (The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona Board of Regents, 2014), https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan. October 10, 2014.

Cited by Haskett: Pakendorf, Brigitte and Mark Stoneking. “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution,” Annual Review Genome Human Genetics 6, (2005): 165–83.

[3]. Natalie Andrews, “What is an Organelle in a Cell?,” Sciencing, https://sciencing.com/organelle-cell-8733502.html, April 24, 2017.

[3-a] Britannica Editors, “phospholipid,” Encyclopedia Britannica, November 14, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/phospholipid.

[4]. National Institutes of Health, “Mitochondrial DNA,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, accessed 04/10/2026, https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/mitochondrial-dna/.

[5]. Haskett, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan.

[6]. Yoav Politi, Liron Gal, Yossi Kalifa, Liat Ravid, Zvulun Elazar, Eli Arama. Paternal Mitochondrial Destruction after Fertilization Is Mediated by a Common Endocytic and Autophagic Pathway in Drosophila. Developmental Cell, 2014; 29 (3): 305 DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.04.005 ; cited in Weizmann Institute of Science. “Inheriting Mitochondria: Where does your father's go?” ScienceDaily, May 15, 2014, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515095637.htm.

Cited by ScienceDaily: Yoav Politi, Liron Gal, Yossi Kalifa, Liat Ravid, Zvulun Elazar, Eli Arama. “Paternal Mitochondrial Destruction after Fertilization Is Mediated by a Common Endocytic and Autophagic Pathway in Drosophila.” Developmental Cell 29, no. 3 (2014): 305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.04.005.

[7]. Haskett, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan.

Cited by Haskell: Cummins, Jim. “The Role of Maternal Mitochondria during Oogenesis, Fertilization and Embryogenesis.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 4 (2002): 176–82, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(10)61937-2/pdf.

[8]. Haskett, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan.

[9]. Hasket, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/mitochondrial-dna-and-human-evolution-1987-rebecca-louise-cann-mark-stoneking-and-allan.

[10]. Ewen Callaway, “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time,” Nature, (August 6, 2013): https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.13478, https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478#/b1.

Cited by Callaway: Poznik, G. D, et al. Science 341, (2013): 562–565.

[11]. Ewen Callaway, “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time,” Nature, (August 6, 2013): https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.13478, https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478#/b1.

[12]. Ewen Callaway, “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time,” Nature, (August 6, 2013): https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.13478, https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478#/b1.

Cited by Callaway: Francalacci, P. et al. Science 341, 565–569 (2013).

[13]. Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, trans. Patrick Lynch, (The Mercier Press, This electronic edition is derived from a scanned version of the 1954 reprint available on archive.org.), Kindle Edition, Kindle Locations 3067 to 3070, 3071 to 3073.

[14]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Note: John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research & Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.

[15]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS Med 2, no. 8 (2005): e124, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

[15A]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/, April 16, 2022 (accessed 04/16/2022).

Source Cited by PSI: The Expose, https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/13/jive-talking-journals-why-the-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-the-data-in-scientific-papers/.

[15B]. Lev Facher, “More than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020, new STAT analysis shows,” STAT, https://www.statnews.com/feature/prescription-politics/federal-full-data-set/, June 9, 2021 (accessed 04/16/2022).

[15C]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International,, April 16, 2022, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/.

Source Cited by PSI: The Expose, https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/13/jive-talking-journals-why-the-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-the-data-in-scientific-papers/.

[15D]. David Randall and Christopher Welser, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform,” National Association of Scholars, April 09/2018, https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility-crisis-of-modern-science/full-report.

[15E]. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” Science: American Association for the Advancement of Science 349, no. 6251 (Aug. 28, 2015): https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.

[15F]. Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, (September 13, 2020): https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/.

[15G]. Dr. Robert W. Carter, “Historical Adam Biologos-Creation.Com,” accessed August 3, 2018, https://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos.

[16]. Stacy A. Trasancos, Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science (Kindle Locations 588 to 589). Ave Maria Press. Kindle Edition.

[17]. Albert Einstein. BrainyQuote.com, Xplore Inc, 2017, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins161289.html.

[18] Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, & Allan C. Wilson, “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution,” Nature (London) 325, (1987): 31–36.

[19] He states, “Mitochondrial genome comes only from the mother (except under unusual circumstances [emphasis added]” (Roger Lewin, Human Evolution. An Illustrated Introduction, 3rd Edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) ISBN: 9-780865-42262-9 ; cited in Friderun Ankel-Simons, & Jim M. Cummins, “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93, no.24 (1996): 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[20] Cann et al., “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution,” 31–36 ; quoted in Friderun Ankel-Simons, & Jim M. Cummins, “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93, no.24 (1996): 13859–13863, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[21] Fleming, A. D., Cummins, J. M., Kuehl, T. J., Seidel, G. E., & Yanagimachi, R. J., Exp. Zool. 237, (1986): 383–390, ; Shalgi, R., Magnus, A., Jones, R. & Phillips, D. M., Mol. Reprod. Dev. 37, (1994):264–271, https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402370311 ; cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization,” 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[22] Pickworth, S. & Chang, M. C. J. Reprod. Fertil. 19, (1969): 371–374; https://doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.019037 ; R. Yanagimachi, Y. Kamiguchi, S. Sugawara, & K. Mikamo, Gamete Res. 8, (1983): 97–117; https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.1120080202, cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization,” 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[23] Shalgi, R., Magnus, A., Jones, R. & Phillips, D. M. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 37, (1994): 264–271 ; cited in cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization, 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859 (online link to text: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859#:~:text=).%20Thus%20the-,oocyte%E2%80%99s%20mtDNA,-copy%20number%20exceeds), cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization, 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[24] C.R. Simerly, N.B. Hecht, E. Goldberg, & G. Schatten, Dev. Biol. 158 (1993): 536–548; https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.1993.1211 ; C.S. Navara, N.L. First, G. Schatten, “Microtubule Organization in the Cow during Fertilization, Polyspermy, Parthenogenesis, and Nuclear Transfer: The Role of the Sperm Aster,” Developmental Biology 162, no. 1 (1994): 29-40; https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.1994.1064.; C. Simerly, G.J. Wu, S. Zoran S, et al., “The paternal inheritance of the centrosome, the cell's microtubule-organizing center, in humans, and the implications for infertility [published correction appears,” in Nat Med 1995 Jun;1(6):599], Nat Med. 1, no. 1 (1995): 47-52; https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0195-47 ; Jan Tesarik, Mario Sousa, “Comparison of Ca2+ responses in human oocytes fertilized by subzonal insemination and by intracytoplasmic sperm injection,” Fertility and Sterility 62, no. 6, (1994): 1197-1204; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57185-4 ; H. Gray, Gray’s Anatomy of the Human Body (Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1995), all above cited in Ankel-Simons, & Cummins, “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution,” https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[25] A.R. Templeton, “The ‘Eve’ Hypotheses: A Genetic Critique and Reanalysis,” American Anthropologist 95, (1993): 51-72; https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1993.95.1.02a00030 ; R. E. Giles, H. Blanc, H. M. Cann, & D. C. Wallace, “Maternal inheritance of human mitochondrial DNA,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77, no. 11 (1980): 6715–6719; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.77.11.6715, cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization,” 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[26] U. Gyllensten, D. Wharton, A. Josefsson, & A.C. Wilson, “Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in mice,” Nature 352, no. 6332, (1991): 255–257; https://doi.org/10.1038/352255a0 ; cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization,” 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[27] Gyllensten, et al., Paternal Inheritance, 255–257 ; cited in Ankel-Simons, et al., “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization,” 13861, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[28] Ankel-Simons, & Cummins, “Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution,” 13862, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13859.

[28A] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, I, Q. 118, A. 1, co., ad.4, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm.

[28B] A. Kim, Miranda L. Bernhardt, B. Kong, Richard W. Ahn, S. Vogt, T. Woodruff, & T. O’Halloran, “Zinc sparks are triggered by fertilization and facilitate cell cycle resumption in mammalian eggs,” ACS chemical biology 6 7, (2011): 716-723, https://doi.org/10.1021/cb200084y ; Kong BY, Duncan FE, Que EL, Xu Y, Vogt S, O’Halloran TV, et al., “The inorganic anatomy of the mammalian preimplantation embryo and the requirement of zinc during the first mitotic divisions,” Dev Dyn. 244, no. 8 (2015): 935–47, https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.24285 PMID: 25903945; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4617753 ; Que EL, Bleher R, Duncan FE, Kong BY, Gleber SC, Vogt S, et al. Quantitative mapping of zinc fluxes in the mammalian egg reveals the origin of fertilization-induced zinc sparks. Nat Chem. 2015; 7(2):1309, https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2133 PMID: 25615666; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4315321 ; last three were cited in Wozniak KL, Bainbridge RE, Summerville DW, Tembo M, Phelps WA, Sauer ML, et al., “Zinc protection of fertilized eggs is an ancient feature of sexual reproduction in animals,” PLoS Biol 18, no. 7 (2020): 2, e3000811, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000811. The spark has been shown to block additional sperm from entering the egg cell by hardening the egg cell wall. The spark additionally initiates the process of meiosis, followed by mitosis.

[28C] Francesca E. Duncan, Emily L. Que, E., Nan Zhang, Teresa K. Woodruff, Thomas V. O’Halloran, & Eve C. Feinberg, “The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation,” Sci Rep 6, no. 24737 (2016): https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24737.

[28D] Anita Schurmann, David N Wells, Björn Oback, “Early zygotes are suitable recipients for bovine somatic nuclear transfer and result in cloned offspring,” Reproduction 132, no. 6, (December 1, 2006), Pages 839–848, https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-06-0054 ; Shun Zhang, Shu Xiang, JinJi Yang, et al., “Optimization of parthenogenetic activation of rabbit oocytes and development of rabbit embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer,” Reprod Dom Anim 54, no. 2 (February 2019):258–269, https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13344.

[28E] Anita Schurmann, David N Wells, Björn Oback, “Early zygotes are suitable recipients for bovine somatic nuclear transfer and result in cloned offspring,” Reproduction 132, no. 6, (December 1, 2006), Pages 839–848, https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-06-0054 ; Shun Zhang, Shu Xiang, JinJi Yang, et al., “Optimization of parthenogenetic activation of rabbit oocytes and development of rabbit embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer,” Reprod Dom Anim 54, no. 2 (February 2019):258–269, https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13344.

[29] Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine Humani Generis, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, August 9 1950), n. 36, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html.

[30] Jeanne Fahnestock, “The Controversy behind the Controversies: Scientific Discourse in the Twenty-First Century,”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2025), 223–243, https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2025.2484162.

[31] John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (London: Lion Books, 2021), Kindle Edition, 17, eISBN: 978 0 7459 8141 3.

[32] Michel-Yves Bollore, & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, pps. 12, 24, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.

[33] James Lawrence Powell, “Premature rejection in science: The case of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis,” Science Progress 105, no. 1 (2022): https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211064272.

[34] Claude Debru, “Science, from error to fraud. The Lyssenko case,” Notes Académiques de l Académie d agriculture de France / Academic Notes of the French Academy of Agriculture (2024), https://doi.org/10.58630/pubac.not.a335599.

[35] Cited in Michel-Yves Bollore, & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, p. 11, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.

[36] Henry Margenau and Roy Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios and Theos, (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1992), p. 83; cited in John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (London: Lion Books, 2021), Kindle Edition, p. 151, eISBN: 978 0 7459 8141 3.

[37] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, p. 127, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.

[38] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, 130-131, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.

[39] Bollore, Michel-Yves & Oliver Bonnassies, God, the Science, the Evidence, trans. Rebecca M. West and Christine Elizabeth Jones (Luxembourg, Palomar, 2025), Kindle Edition, 80-82, eISBN: 978-9-99878-241-9.

Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture