Hi Russell



Thanks for the correction Russell. I had not heard of this. However, my statements were not as "simply not true" as you have suggested. And here is why I was not far off the mark.

The quote you gave me was helpful.

The article tells us that the apes/monkeys would have been ideal, because they have resistance to many of the deadly viruses that humans are suseptible to (HIV and hepatitis B). But this again emphasises how different they are, regardless of how "ideal" it might have been. Unlike human beings, apes appear to be resistent to certain human viruses. This contradicts our apparent close relationship to the apes.

But there is more. Instead of the risk of passing on human disease, they can instead pass on a monkey virus called "Herpes 8" which is deadly to human beings and can kill them in a matter of 7 days. Reminds me a little of the bird flu. Certainly it seems that virsues caught from animals are almost lethal to human beings, but not always to the animals themselves.

If it was also a case of discontinuing the transplants because of such close genetic relationship, then we would surely not be using transplants from fellow human beings. Clearly, though we share similar physical traits to the apes/monkeys, we are also clearly different and that differences appear to outweigh the similarities dramatically enough to be lethal. Perhaps far more than the evolutionists are willing to admit.

Such genetic closeness to the apes, if it existed would be ideal and would prevent alot of the crying out for organ donors from other human beings. This is why it is far safer to get a brother or a sister donating one of their own organs to their sibling because of the higher likelihood that their body will accept it. The closer the relationship, even amongst our own, the better. Apparently apes don't come close.

You've mentioned it being safer from pigs because of being further apart in genetic similarity? Since the human body is designed to protect itself and recognise foreign material so that it can assert itself against it, I can't quite figure out how this fits in completely. Medically, it is preferable that organ donors come from the same family to reduce the risks of rejection. Pigs are obviously more similar to human beings in particular parts of their anatomy and seem to be the most compatible as far as animals are concerned.

Evolution has taught us that we come from a common ancestor, yet these differences become suddenly apparent when reality hits home that there are definite boundaries between us and them, that even medical intervention cannot seem to overcome. Perhaps oneday they will find a way, but either way, I am of the belief that we do indeed share a common designer, but I don't agree that we share a common ancestor.



The science behind this is solid? Yes we are told this over and over again, including "we have truckloads of evidence". Personally I've seen alot of assumptions and manipulation and excuses. But I'm willing to look into it more if I get the time. I would imagine it takes quite a bit of reading and study and making sure one gets the information from both sides of the arguments before coming to any conclusions.

PS. As far as I'm aware, Pope Benedict is a believer in creation. I am aware that Pope John Paul II did suggest that evolution maybe involved in God's creation. But again, many people are of this belief because of what they are being told. This is a big thing for people to bring the Pope into it, but the Pope is human also. We are all being told this by the science arena. The fact the Pope (or any other Pope), may consider it possible, doesn't make it a reality. It is certainly not mentioned in the bible or the Catholic Catechism, so therefore it becomes an opinion, rather than a foundation belief of our church.