I believe parent-poster is making a joke at the expense of conspiracy-theorists who believe in lizard-people, rather than endorsing the idea. To paraphrase, something like:

"This news article links human survival to something taken from amphibians and reptiles. There are conspiracy-theorists who posit the existence of Lizard people. It would be amusing if those humans discovered this news, and claimed it was a plot by Lizard People to make us dependent on them."

So there, I think I explained the joke... which isn't necessarily a good thing. In the words of E.B. White:

> Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.

Now, I could work that new amphibian-connection into another joke... But let's face it, it would be "too meta" at this point.

I feel like sometimes the actual act of explaining the joke can actually be funnier than the joke itself. Occasionally when I can explain a super dirty joke with a deadpan and matter-of-fact tone people will laugh more than they would have if they had actually gotten the joke in the first place.