A lot of titles of many things from such videos to supposed 'news' articles are 'misleading' these days. With the word 'interference' being the most disputable one in this title. It implies conscious intervention. But then perhaps they feared too many of us would object to the word 'contamination' which is probably closer to accurate description of what they think happened.
And that 'Ancient Aliens' series? i was embarrassed for History Channel's shameless attempt to draw more viewers by giving proponents of the idea--especially the ones who want discredit and dismiss the ingenuity of various early hominids by crediting 'aliens' with every advancement made by humankind that much screen time. And i am someone who accepts the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations that may many times older than own.
Some scientists think Lifeforms first used RNA, which they've now been able to synthesize demonstrating that the RNA could have formed spontaneously from chemicals present on prelifeforms earth, to encode the 'building blocks' of life-forms, then DNA. So far they haven't proven that DNA may also have come into being similarly because RNA has been getting the attention (there are 'trends' in research science). For more detail on that see:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
What people who make much of the notion of 'alien interference' ignore is that if it occurred, whether purposely or accidentally, it clearly was not confined to hominid lifeforms as we share some DNA 'codes'? 'structures'? with virtually all other lifeforms on the planet. You might remember a few years back there were headlines making out that the Octopus Genome was 'alien'. It is not, tho it apparently has a number of unique genes that surprised those looking at their DNA. Just looked at an article i thought would give a quick overview of that. But apparently the author was more interested in saying 'gotcha' to evolutionary scientists than getting to the point.
While it is true when they say 'de novo' of a gene (i.e. it is new) they are saying they don't know the origin of gene (yet), that particular author worded it in such as way that clearly they wanted to make the scientists' willingness to acknowledge what they don't know into a 'bad' thing instead of an admission that they don't know yet. And i did find an article, for anyone interested that explains why the Octopus is apparently genetically the most unique lifeform on our planet.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/untangling-octopus-genome
Sorry fell down the research rabbit hole. The main things i wanted to say were:
1) While i dislike this trend to misleading titles, i'm not even surprised by it anymore and often take a quick look at a video or article just to see how much they strayed from verifiable facts.
2) The Bible reference seems out of place without a statement of why you think it relevant. (Tho it calls to mind several SciFi stories i read in my youth that played with such references, in some cases with terrestrial explorers becoming the 'Gods' in alien races' eyes, because as Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
