38
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
38 points (71.1% liked)
UFOs
2684 readers
3 users here now
This community is for discussion surrounding UFOs and Extraterrestrials.
Rules
- Be your own moderator
- Think before you post or comment, and use your common sense about what is acceptable. This is a community space and should ultimately be community-driven. Be the community you want to see here.
- If you are here because you want to make fun of or grandstand over all of the silly people who believe that UFO/UAPs may exist, you are not welcome. Just block the community and go about your day.
- Be Civil
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills/agents. If you have some kind of evidence of this, please report instead.
- No hate speech or abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing.
- No summarily dismissive comments (e.g. "Swamp gas.").
- Posts must be related to UFO/UAPs
- Avoid duplicate posts
- Link posts should contain the linked content and a submission statement
- Submission statements should contain a summary of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, and optionally personal perspectives.
- For short-form content, such as tweets, include the entire text.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll reword then. If an organism has 70% DNA similarity to humans, the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that they're evolutionarily related to us.
If that's not the conclusion you draw, then you could just as easily say that an organism whose DNA was 99% similar to yours (me, for example) isn't evolutionarily related to humans.
He asserted the claim of them not being evolutionarily related to us, but gave us evidence that would make it easier to assume the opposite. He gave us no DNA evidence that they're truly alien. And this all presupposes that what he said was accurate.
I agree it is, by far, the simplest explanation. Simplest explanation doesn't mean only explanation, and I prefer to not entirely dismiss other options just because they appear unlikely to me. Let's not forget the samples could be contaminated.
In this instance, after looking at the analysis that other folks have done of the MRI scans and x-rays, I am personally sufficiently satisfied with the hypothesis that these are dolls made with a hodgepodge of animal and human remains.