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.
