Close
today i learned (til)

What if humans weren’t meant to be here… like at all

April 24, 2026

What if humans weren’t meant to be here… like at all

What if the first human to ever think for themselves didn’t ask how to survive… but instead asked why they existed at all?

According to scientists working in these disciplines, humans have an inherent nature which pushes them towards finding explanations and developing patterns in their environment especially when faced with the unknown. Long before science, early cultures relied on rational stories for understanding their environments.

Another such example is the one found in ancient Mesopotamian mythology. There are tales about otherworldly beings known as the Anunnaki who existed within this mythology. Not only did these beings exist within the stories, but they were crucial to comprehending the nature of human existence on Earth. Some Annunaki were associated with the sky, others to the underworld, and they were believed to decide human fate. As per the information provided by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Anunnaki refers to the offspring of god Anu who was a component of a cosmology that explained a wide range of occurrences in nature and human experience (Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.). Thus, it is necessary to note that, initially, knowledge about extraterrestrial beings did not exist.

But something happened later on.

The story didn’t stay the same.

In the context of reinterpretation of the old myths in a modern setting, the whole story behind them got an entirely new meaning. All of a sudden, Annunaki was not just an ancient god anymore but an extraterrestrial being that was part of an incredibly advanced civilization experiencing some difficulties. To be more precise, the atmosphere became extremely polluted, which led to death. They turned to Earth because of one key resource: gold. Earth, rich in natural elements, became their solution.

But there was a problem.

Mining gold would take time. A lot of time.

In order not to perform these duties by themselves, they created an instrument that would be able to work on their behalf.

Humans.

The Anunnaki merged their genes with those of hominids in order to create a species that would be capable of performing these tasks for them. At first, it worked. Humans followed the orders that were given. They mined, they built, they functioned almost like tools. But then something changed.

One of the most compelling parts of this theory is the idea that one of these beings, often linked to Anu–the son of the Annunaki king–had a child with a human woman. This child was different. More aware, more knowledgeable. Picture yourself as the very first human asking, “Why am I doing this… and for whom?” That question alone challenges everything. Humans began to think deeply. They became emotional, unpredictable… aware. 

But that’s the important thing: this entire tale of aliens and gold mining never appears in any Mesopotamian texts from antiquity. It is rather a theory that doesn’t originate from any scholarship. The original myths never described humans as engineered workers or the Anunnaki as extraterrestrial beings. That version of the story developed much later.

So why does it still exist?

Based on scientific analysis, the tendency among people to come up with origin stories is innate. According to cognitive science and anthropology, there is an inherent tendency among humans to develop structured explanations, often involving supernatural elements, since these allow humans to make sense of complexity and provide meaning to their existence (Boyer, 2001). Put simply, the Anunnaki story does not arise from thin air but from an instinctive drive in humans to make sense of their surroundings.

But when science comes into play, the answer becomes obvious—and totally opposite.

There are no scientific proofs to support the notion that extraterrestrials created humans. Instead, human evolution is explained through natural selection. Primitive forms of hominids, which refer to primitive people, slowly evolved from ancient human-like species into modern-day humans. It is clear that according to the evidence provided by fossil records and genetic researches, Homo sapiens are believed to have originated from various animals that existed in the past due to the effects of natural selection (Stringer, 2016). According to scientists, natural selection is a process through which particular traits allow for survival and reproduction, which leads to improved behavioral patterns and neurological development. 

This process was not planned. It was not designed.

It was shaped by the environment.

Even the idea of gold—so central to the Anunnaki theory—has a scientific explanation. The presence of gold on Earth was not intentional. Rather, gold was formed in space due to some calamities like supernovae or neutron stars billions of years back. In the following period, geologic phenomena such as volcanic eruptions led to the presence of gold in Earth’s crust. In other words, the existence of gold on Earth was not because any being had come down to earth for mining gold; it was the creation of the universe that made it possible.

What does this mean for us then?

The myth concerning the Anunnaki can be said to be in between a myth and scientific theory. Ancient myths explained many things for ancient people. But modern theories reinterpret ancient myths in the context of science. And science explains everything, though perhaps not very mystically.

But perhaps that is the whole idea.

For it is not only about determining the truth regarding the existence of the Anunnaki.

It’s about something much deeper in the human mind.

Humans have always been in pursuit of some sort of meaning. There is a constant inquiry into the reason for our existence, our difference from other animals, and our purpose. These ideas show how far we are willing to go to explain our existence.

So maybe the real question isn’t “Were the Anunnaki real? Did they really create humans?”

Maybe the real question is…

“Why do we keep wanting a story where something created us—on purpose?”

References (APA 7th Edition)

Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books. https://sackett.net/BoyerReligionExplained.pdf

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Anunnaki. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anunnaki

Stringer, C. (2016). The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1698). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/371/1698/20150237/22900/The-origin-and-evolution-of-Homo-sapiensThe-origin

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
Why can’t I tickle myself?
today i learned (til)
‘Vampire Facials’: Viable or Just Bloody Gross?
today i learned (til)
Children of the Night
today i learned (til)
My DNA Replication Rap! Effort to Teach Students Science In Ways That They Understand

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.