There’s been a flurry of news recently from human paleontology. It seems to me that it sheds far more light on our preoccupations than on our origins. Four examples:

● “Did humans learn to walk in trees?” (ScienceDaily, July 29, 2025):

In the quest to understand how and why early humans started walking on two legs, scientists are now looking to chimpanzees living in dry, open savannah-like environments for clues. A new study reveals that these chimpanzees, despite the open terrain, still frequently climb trees to gather fruit and other foods found high in the canopy. Their behavior suggests that bipedalism may not have evolved purely as a response to ground-based travel, but also for safe and efficient movement within trees.

Image Credit: ksu_ok - Adobe Stock

Humans are the only fully bipedal life form; the critical advantage of bipedalism is that it frees up the arms to do things other than support and move the body.

Bipedalism is not particularly an advantage when moving around in trees (no kidding, squirrels and monkeys were consulted on this point). If the chimpanzees who climb trees a lot were fully bipedal, they would likely climb fewer trees. They would use their forelimbs more frequently for other activities. So it is not clear how much light this really sheds. The paper is open access.

● “Ancient fossils in Ethiopia rewrite the first chapter of human evolution”

“People often think evolution is a linear progression,” explains [Lucas] Delezene, “like the March of Progress, but in reality humans are only one species that make up a twig of a bigger family tree — it’s quite bushy and what we found is another twig that was previously unknown. The idea that Homo appears and immediately spreads around the planet and replaces all other hominin species is not accurate. Homo lived side-by-side with many other hominin species throughout Africa. What’s neat is that Homo overlaps with different hominin species in different places.” University of Arkansas, September 11, 2025

Given that other sources tell us that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and current humans all interbred, it’s reasonable to think that there may never have been many human “species.” The researchers need for many human species may greatly outpace the ability of the human race to produce them. The paper is open access.

What exactly is a “species” in the human context? If we can interbreed, what makes us separate species? One seldom hears these questions tackled.

● “Rice anthropologist among first to use AI to uncover new clues that early humans were prey, not predators” (Kat Cosley Trigg, Rice University, September 18, 2025):

“For decades, researchers believed that Homo habilis — the earliest known species in our genus — marked the moment humans rose from prey to predators … New findings from a team led by Rice University anthropologist Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo … challenge that view, revealing that these early humans were still preyed upon by carnivores, likely leopards. “The beginning of the human brain doesn’t mean we mastered everything immediately,” Domínguez-Rodrigo said. “This is a more complex story. These early humans, these Homo habilis, were not the ones responsible for that transformation.”

Image Credit: Анатолий - Adobe Stock

“He said it’s a reminder that human evolution wasn’t a single leap from prey to predator but a long, gradual climb and that H. habilis may not have been the turning point researchers once believed. ”

But why did researchers believe that humans were only predators? Humans have always been both predators and prey.

An Alberta hunter inadvertently illustrated that for me recently. He noted that one should always keep the rifle ready to hand when dressing game because bears can appear suddenly from nowhere… And they are not especially fussy.

The advent of modern weaponry and densely packed urban life gave humans a decided physical advantage against non-human predators. But take all that away and the leopard’s chances greatly improve, even today. The paper is open access.

● “The hidden Denisovan gene that helped humans conquer a new world” (ScienceDaily, October 7, 2025):

“A new study reveals that a mysterious gene called MUC19, inherited through interbreeding between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and humans, may have played a vital role in helping early Americans survive new diseases, foods, and environments … Why the Denisovan variant became so common in North and South America but not in other parts of the world isn’t yet clear. Villanea noted that the first people who lived in the Americas likely encountered conditions unlike anything else in human history, including new kinds of food and diseases. Denisovan DNA may have given them additional tools to contend with challenges like these.”

This sounds pretty speculative. The researchers are looking for a gene — as opposed to intelligence, determination and desperation — that explains how Indigenous peoples survived in North America. The gene is doubtless interesting, but aren’t we carrying genetic determinism a little far here? Here’s the paper.

With the study of human origins, it is useful to ask, what are researchers actually seeking?

It seems as if many are looking for the random blip that changed everything by supposedly creating the immaterial mind — which is what truly distinguishes humans from the life around us. Few ask why, if there is such a blip, it has never worked its magic on sand dollars, mushrooms, or trees. But there is never a shortage of random blips in the world so we can count on many more papers exploring them. And the results are often entertaining, as long as we do not confuse them with an understanding of the realities of our human origin and experience.

You may also wish to read: The human mind has no history.