Well, imagine a model of the apparent motion of the planets where each planet moved on a perfectly circular orbit with any number of smaller circles on top of it, with the main circle of the orbit centered on a point between the Earth, or even the Sun, and another point a bit further from it. So, you know, an epicyclical model of the motion of the planets [1].
"In terms of the impact such a thing would have on the world", as you put it, would it matter if that model was completely wrong, despite its great predictive power?
Did we gain something when we figured out how the planets really move?
"Wrong" doesn't make much sense here. The more inductive bias we think is appropriate which we try to shove into models, the worse they perform. There's also an awful lot of fabrication the brain does with sense data, rationales etc. all of this is to say we have no clue what makes us tick. This means there's absolutely no guarantee we would recognize a replication of "human"
Something different is not necessarily "wrong". a plane's flight is no less "true" than a bird. It's not flying the "wrong" way.
Trying to elevate our very poor and wrong understanding of "human" to be the same as "right" or "true" is very silly. Even Biology with its set of constraints does not always solve the same problem the same way. Who are you to dub one way "right" ? Makes no sense.
"In terms of the impact such a thing would have on the world", as you put it, would it matter if that model was completely wrong, despite its great predictive power?
Did we gain something when we figured out how the planets really move?
_______________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle