Hi Bex

Even some humans are resistant to HIV and Hepatitis B so you don’t have to be very far removed for this to be a factor. Most viruses are very host specific though there are exceptions such as the bird flu though even that is specific to a couple of species only. We share more diseases with the great apes than with any other species known and the compatibility goes both ways, some human diseases are deadly to apes.

Pigs on the other hand share very few viruses with us due to our greater separation from them. This is a good thing for transplantation. The down side of it is that, due to their greater separation rejection is a bigger issue. Human – Human donations carry the greatest disease risk of all but on the up side the lowest rejection risk and humans as a rule are fairly disease free due to our modern medicines and hygiene practices which significantly mitigates this risk. Rejection is to date an insurmountable problem in human to pig transplantation of live/active organs, it is a big though at least surmountable problem with ape to human transplantation as that article mentioned and it is a relatively easily dealt with issue in human to human transplants with our modern medical protocols of tissue matching and anti rejection drugs.

So in short the picture looks like this.

Disease compatibility
Human to Human – maximum disease risk as virtually all diseases are compatible with the recipient
Apt to Human – intermediate disease risk as only a small though significant minority of diseases are intracompatible. Due to our genetic differences some diseases from one species are fatal to the other.
Pig to Human – very low disease risk as virtually no diseases are intra-compatible.

Rejection
Human to Human – lowest risk due to the very high degree of natural compatibility though this is an issue which must be dealt with in every case.
Ape to Human – higher risk due to reduced similarity but live organ transplantation has been successfully tested.
Pig to Human – greatest risk, no live tissue transplants have ever successfully been achieved. Rejection is controllable in inert (dead) tissue transplants such as heart valves and some hormone extracts which don’t carry a rejection risk as they have no proteins expressed by which the immune system could be triggered.

Which is exactly in line with what you would expect if ToE were true and not what you would expect if creation were true. The pattern is simply this, rejection is a greater risk the further you get from our lineage according to the standard relationships that come out of ToE. Disease is a greater risk the closer to our lineage you go according to the standard relationships that come out of ToE.

Is this really what you’d expect if creation were true? Why would god make us susceptible to ape diseases more than any others? Why would he make us compatible with their organs with difficulty and not at all with life pig organs which are for many reasons better candidates? Why not make us immune to all disease or at least to diseases of other animals. Why not make us compatible with all animals as this would alleviate a great deal of suffering?

Certainly it seems that virsues caught from animals are almost lethal to human beings, but not always to the animals themselves.

That’s not true that animal diseases are lethal to humans. The vast majority of viruses that animals carry are incapable of doing any damage to humans what so ever and vice versa. There are a few notable exceptions with the highest number coming from the great apes our apparent closest relatives and the number falls as you move further from our lineage as ToE explains.

Today all live animal organs are fatal to humans with the single known exception of Baboons, our apparent close relative according to ToE. Our close relationship with them explains our greater problems of shared diseases and our lesser issue with Pigs and the opposite relationship for rejection with Baboons having the lowest rejection risk and pigs the highest for live organs.

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.

Physical compatibility is a mechanical question not a genetic question. Pigs are similar in size and structure to humans and are readily and cheaply available. Live organs from pigs are incompatible to humans because that becomes a genetic issue, genetically they are incompatible beyond the abilities of medical science today. Baboons are genetically compatible within the abilities of our science though with difficulties. They are the closest known genetic match for humans exactly as predicted by ToE.

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.

That sounds like a very good idea. RazD’s posts have recently included some detailed information that might be a good starting point for you.

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.

Indeed it does though its best, if you want to actually come to an understanding of it, to avoid the loony fringe and focus on those who’ve actually got some credentials and study behind their words. There are an awful lot of people out there who have no real understanding of ToE or paleontology yet they spruke their ignorance very loudly indeed. Try to find people who’ve really studied this stuff as your information sources.

PS. As far as I'm aware, Pope Benedict is a believer in creation.

Yes Benedict has back peddled marginally though I believe both popes believed in creation just not in the literal description of it contained in genesis.

The fact the Pope (or any other Pope), may consider it possible, doesn't make it a reality.

True but it suggests that those who believe that you can’t be a christian and accept ToE are wrong.

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.

My impression is that the catholic church explicitly accepts ToE with a few small provisos relating to the addition of souls to us. Their acceptance of it is on the basis that they have more important truths to learn from the bible and the exact details of this part of the story can be left up to the scientist who have done an ‘astonishing’ job in the John Paul’s words. So no it’s not in the catechism, your salvation does not hang on it so they have more important things to focus on. As for the bible it is very clearly wrong on this question. The bible does touch indirectly on ToE in a number of passages and it is wrong in its statements in virtually every case.

All the best Bex

Russell