by Murrell Selden
Original sin (in the Garden of Eden) means corruption of the flesh (meaning genetic corruption). Scientists in Britain suppose that mitrochrondria, as it exists, is a result of virus infection. Thus, it may not have been an original condition. See the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/specials/sheffield_99/newsid_447000/447058.stm
I would also note that Dolly, the famous clone, was not identical to its original. The mitochondria differ. Dolly, the sheep, existed and lived.
I would have to say that likely the writers on the subject are in fact ignorant of the details on genetics. Moreover, the experts themselves are confounded to a significant extent.
Dolly differed, since the DNA in a nucleus was transferred - not the whole cytoplasm of the cell.
While mitochondria are needed, they are subject to substantial attack (by viruses and natural forces such as radiation). This is obviously one of the reasons for the nucleus of the cell - i. e. to protect the fundamental design of an organism.
Another Biblical story, that of Noah and his family, suggests that only four women existed at the time of the Flood. If this is true (and I am willing to accept it), then the concept would lead to the argument of four types of maternal DNA (if it were true that it was inherited only from females). I charge that this concept is false, though it could be that their are then four general types of maternal DNA (all the variations being from those four ladies).
As Sammy Sloan knows, I believe in the Bible as the word of God. I believe all the stories are true, actual stories. The problems lie in interpretations of the stories and the true time lines of the stories. For example, when it is said that the creation was made in seven days, I believe it was meant that it was made in seven time periods (some of which may have been millions of years).
My web site on the birthday of Jesus illustrates how I have found the birthday of Jesus to be June 16th in 2 B. C. (that is the same as Sivan 14 on the Jewish calendar in 2 B. C.). That is quite a different interpretation that 99+ % of folks have found to be true. Very few people read the Bible and try to understand it. For example, when a Bible passage says something happened in the first month (as the wedding at Cana), do most people think Spring and the Jewish month of Nissan? No, most people think of January. But, the Bible generally uses the Jewish lunar calendar, which begins in March or April near the Spring Equinox. So, when the angel Gabriel visited Mary in the sixth month (as told by the scriptures), do most people think of the month of Elul? No, rather they try to interpret it as if the reference was to the sixth month of pregnancy of Elizabeth. But, I believe the Bible meant Elul. Why say that the angel visited Mary in the sixth month and then say it was the sixth month for Elizabeth? Very simple, it was two statements with different meanings. One meant that it was the month of Elul. The other meant Elizabeth was six months pregnant. Sorry, but my opinion is that the religious experts are absurdly in error and mostly don't care (because it does not suit their purposes). Whoever heard of Christmas on June 16th? I admit my birthday is June 16th, but that had nothing to do with my calculations! Except, I wonder if God meant it that way.
It appears that mankind keeps on seeking to use science and math to discredit the Bible, so that it can be dismissed as non-scientific and old tales of religious power mongers (people desirous of using the fear of God to get things and position from the people). But, I would note that even Darwin had respect and took a long time to be provoked into writing his theories of evolution. He had studied for the ministry and had been a failure - probably because he recognized hypocrisy and untruth in many areas. I am glad for the observations of Darwin, and I see the variations of the species to be in a similar category to the variations in mitochrondria.
Best wishes.
Murrell Selden