The scripture doesn’t expressly negate it, but it makes yours an extrascriptural speculation, which has nothing to do with the arguments for (or against) Mary’s immaculacy anyway.
True. . .just as it is an extrascriptural speculation that no other DNA was involved.
which has nothing to do with the arguments for (or against) Mary’s immaculacy anyway.
Again, true. But my original post wasn't aimed at that, but at the specific claim about "Mary's flesh."