This is fascinating and I appreciate the article on the Tibetan hemoglobin evolution. I wonder how many apostolate Christians have read this in the journal of Nature, given that this may satisfy the alteration of some people their views. Or was this statement merely the proverbial blowing smoke?
Honestly, what I don’t understand about many fundamental religious people and their resistance to evolution and the proof thereof, is the basic evidence through animal husbandry. For example, cattle, horses, and so forth have clearly altered easily in their appearance at least, within some of our lifetimes, and not to mention new phenotypes (often with associated, resulting behaviors) of dogs that absolutely cannot be denied.
Granted, this is not due to natural selection, and nearly 100% due to human selective breeding; however, this is observable change over time. It's a place to start, in any event.
It's simply difficult to find a common ground with those who make statements that include "there is no evidence that can be shown that would cause [him] to change..." our minds/beliefs/thoughts/opinions/thinking on a subject.
This is a foreign concept to a scientist, skeptic or atheist.
My two cents worth.