A braided stream, not a family tree: How new evidence upends our understanding of how humans evolved
Our species is the last living member of the human family tree. But just 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals walked the Earth, and hundreds of thousands of years before then, our ancestors overlapped with many other hominins — two-legged primate species.
This raises several questions: Which other populations and species did our ancestors mate with, and when? And how did this ancient mingling shape who we are today?
"Everywhere we've got hominins in the same place, we should assume there's the potential that there's a genetic interaction," Adam Van Arsdale, a biological anthropologist at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, told Live Science.
In other words, different hominin species were having sex — and babies — together. This means our evolutionary family tree is tangled, with still-unknown relatives possibly hiding in the branches.
Emerging DNA evidence suggests this "genetic interaction" resulted in the diversity and new combinations of traits that helped ancient humans — including our ancestors — thrive in different environments around the globe.
"It's all about variation," Rebecca Ackermann, a biological anthropologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, told Live Science. "More variation in humans allows us to be more flexible as a species and, as a result, be more successful as a species because of all the diversity."
Cutting-edge techniques may illuminate the crucial periods deeper in our evolutionary past that led to Homo sapiens evolving in Africa, or even shed light on periods before the Homo genus existed. That knowledge, in turn, could improve our understanding of exactly what makes us human.
Related: Lucy's last day: What the iconic fossil reveals about our ancient ancestor's last hours
A braided stream
In the early 20th century, scientists thought there was a clear evolutionary line between our ancestors and us, with one species sequentially evolving into another and no contribution from "outside" populations, like the branches on a tree.
But 21st-century advances in ancient DNA analysis techniques have revealed that our origins are more like a braided stream — an idea borrowed from geology, where shallow channels branch off and rejoin a stream like a network.
"It becomes very hard when you think about things in more of a braided stream model to divide [populations] into discrete groups," Ackermann said. "There are not, by definition, any discrete groups; they have contributed to each other's evolution."
Ackermann studies variation and hybridization — the exchange of genes between different groups — across the evolutionary history of hominins, to better understand how genetic and cultural exchange made us human. And she thinks hybridization both within and outside Africa played a significant role in our origins.
Evidence of such hybridization has come out in a steady stream since the first Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010. That research program, which earned geneticist Svante Pääbo a Nobel Prize in 2022, revealed that H. sapiens and Neanderthals regularly had sex. It also led to the discovery of the Denisovans, a previously unknown population that ranged across Asia from about 200,000 to 30,000 years ago and that also had offspring with both Neanderthals and H. sapiens.
"You have so much complexity that it makes no sense to say there was only one origin of sapiens. There can't be one universal model that explains literally every human on Earth."
Sheela Athreya, Texas A&M University
When species share genes with one another through hybridization, the process is known as introgression, and when those shared genes are beneficial to a population, it's known as adaptive introgression.
Emerging from two decades of gene studies of humans and our extinct relatives is the understanding that we may be who we are thanks to a proclivity to pair off with anyone — including other species.
Connecting with other groups — socially and sexually — was an important part of human evolution. "For us to survive and become human probably really depended on that," Van Arsdale said.
Benefits of hybridization
Since the first Neanderthal genome was sequenced, researchers have attempted to identify when and how often our H. sapiens ancestors mated with other species and groups. They've also investigated how Neanderthal and Denisovan genes affect us today. Many of these studies rely on large datasets of genomes from humans living today and tie them back to ancient DNA extracted from the bones of extinct humans and their relatives who lived tens of thousands of years ago.
These analyses show that many genes that originated in now-extinct groups may confer advantages to us today. For instance, modern Tibetans have a unique gene variant for high-altitude living that they likely inherited from the Denisovans, while different versions of Neanderthal skin pigment genes may have helped some populations adapt to less-sunny climates while protecting others from UV radiation.
There is also evidence that Neanderthal genes helped early members of our species adapt quickly to life in Europe. Given their long history in Europe prior to the arrival of H. sapiens, Neanderthals had built up a suite of genetic variations to deal with diseases unique to the area. H. sapiens encountered these novel diseases when they spread into areas where Neanderthals lived. But, by mating with Neanderthals, they also got genes that protected them from those viruses.
Beyond specific traits that may confer advantages in humans today, these episodes of mating diversified the human gene pool, which may have helped our ancestors weather varied environments.
The importance of modern genetic diversity can be illustrated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, which are critical to the human immune system's ability to recognize pathogens. Humans today have a dizzying array of these genes, especially in eastern Asia. This area of the world is a "hotspot" for emerging infectious diseases due to a combination of biological, ecological and social factors, so this diversity may provide advantages in an area where new diseases are frequently emerging.
When genetic diversity is lost through population isolation and decline, groups may become particularly susceptible to new infections or unable to adapt to new ecological circumstances. For instance, one theory holds that Neanderthal populations declined and eventually went extinct around 40,000 years ago because they lacked genetic diversity due to inbreeding and isolation.
Related: Did we kill the Neanderthals? New research may finally answer an age-old question.
Discovery of "ghost populations"
Some of the newest research goes deeper into evolutionary time, identifying "ghost populations" — human groups that went extinct after contributing genes to our species. Often, archaeologists have no skeletal remains from these populations, but their echoes linger in our genome, and their existence can be gleaned by modeling how genes change over time.
For instance, a "mystery population" of up to 50,000 individuals that interbred with our ancestors 300,000 years ago passed along genes that created more connections between brain cells, which may have boosted our brain functioning.
The population that hybridized with H. sapiens and helped boost our brains may have been a lineage of Homo erectus. This species was once thought to have disappeared after evolving into H. sapiens in Africa, but anthropologists now think H. erectus survived in parts of Asia until 115,000 years ago.
In fact, our evolutionary history may include the mating of populations that had been separated for up to a million years, Van Arsdale said. These "superarchaic" populations are increasingly being discovered as we mine our own genomes and those of our close relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans.
For instance, a genetic study published in 2020 identified a superarchaic population that separated from other human ancestors about 2 million years ago but then interbred with the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans around 700,000 years ago. Experts don't know exactly what genes this superarchaic ghost population shared with our ancestors or who it was, but it may have been a lineage of H. erectus.
Evolutionary blank space
But there's a large, unmapped region of human evolutionary history — and it's crucial for our identity as a species.
The period when H. sapiens was first evolving in Africa, and the more distant period of human evolutionary history on the continent that predates the Homo genus, remains a huge knowledge gap. That's in part because DNA preserves well in caves and other stable environments in frigid areas of the world, like those found in areas of Europe and Asia, while Africa's warmer conditions usually degrade DNA. As a result, the most ancient complete human DNA sequence from Africa is just 18,000 years old. By contrast, a skeleton discovered in northern Spain produced a full mitochondrial genome from a human relative, H. heidelbergensis, who lived more than 300,000 years ago.
"Maps of human ancient DNA are overwhelmingly Eurasian data," Van Arsdale said. "And the reality is that's a marginal place in our evolutionary past. So to understand what was happening in the core of Africa would be potentially transformative."
This is where current DNA technology falls short.
Small hominins that walked on two legs, called australopithecines, evolved around 4.4 million years ago in Africa. And between 3 million and 2 million years ago, our genus, Homo, likely evolved from them. H. sapiens evolved around 300,000 years ago in Africa and then traveled around the world. But given the scarcity of ancient DNA from Africa, it is difficult to figure out which groups were mating and hybridizing in that vast time span, or how the fossil skeletons of human relatives from the continent were related.
Related: 'It makes no sense to say there was only one origin of Homo sapiens': How the evolutionary record of Asia is complicating what we know about our species
A new technique called paleoproteomics could help shed light on our African origin as a species and even reveal clues about the genetic makeup of australopithecines and other related hominins. Because genes are the instructions that code for proteins, identifying ancient proteins trapped in tooth enamel and fossil skeletons can help scientists determine some of the genes that were present in populations that lived millions of years ago.
Still, it's a very new technique. To date, paleoproteomic analysis has identified only a handful of incomplete protein sequences in ancient human relatives and has thus far been able to glean only a small amount of genetic information from those.
But in a landmark study published this year, researchers used proteins in tooth enamel to figure out the biological sex of a 3.5 million-year-old Australopithecus africanus individual from South Africa. And in another study, also published this year, scientists used tooth enamel from a 2 million-year-old human relative, Paranthropus robustus, to identify genetic variability among four fossil skeletons — a finding that suggests they may have been from different groups, or even different species.
Paleoproteomics is still pretty limited, though. In a recent study, scientists analyzed a dozen ancient proteins found in fossils of Neanderthals, Denisovans, H. sapiens and chimpanzees. They found that these proteins could help reconstruct a family tree down to the genus level, but were not useful at the species level.
Still, the fact that protein data can be used to reconstruct part of the braided stream of early humans and to identify the chromosomal sex of human relatives is encouraging, and further research along these lines is needed, experts told Live Science.
Some are confident new approaches could help us unpack these early interactions.
"I think we're going to learn a lot more about Africa's ancient past in the next two decades than we have so far," Van Arsdale said.
Ackermann is more cautious. To really understand when, where and with whom our human ancestors mated and how that made us who we are, "we need to have a whole genome" from these ancient human relatives, she said. "With proteins, you just don't get that."
Sheela Athreya, a biological anthropologist at Texas A&M University, is optimistic that we can use these new techniques to tease apart our more distant evolutionary past — and that it will yield surprises. For instance, she thinks what we now call Denisovans may actually have been H. erectus.
RELATED STORIES
—DNA has an expiration date. But proteins are revealing secrets about our ancient ancestors we never thought possible.
—28,000-year-old Neanderthal-and-human 'Lapedo child' lived tens of thousands of years after our closest relatives went extinct
—Never-before-seen cousin of Lucy might have lived at the same site as the oldest known human species, new study suggests
"Absolutely in my lifetime, someone will be able to get a Homo erectus genome," Athreya said, likely from colder areas of Asia. "I'm excited. I think it'll look Denisovan."
Either way, it's clear that a whole lot of mixing made us human.
The Homo lineage may have first evolved in Africa, Athreya said. "But once it left Africa, you have so much complexity that it makes no sense to say there was only one origin of sapiens. There can't be one universal model that explains literally every human on Earth."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns
Key Points CRISPR Therapeutics' first approved therapy, Casgevy, was a breakthrough. One of Casgevy's biggest achievements may be demonstrating the viability of CRISPR Therapeutics' strategy. The biotech company could soar if it can follow up that win with more clinical and regulatory milestones. 10 stocks we like better than CRISPR Therapeutics › Over the past few years, the market hasn't been kind to somewhat speculative, unprofitable stocks. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP), a mid-cap biotech, fits that description. The company's shares are down by 24% since mid-2022. The S&P 500 is up 50% over the same period. Despite this terrible performance, there are reasons to believe that CRISPR Therapeutics could still generate life-changing returns for investors willing to be patient. Here's how the biotech could pull it off. CRISPR Therapeutics' first success CRISPR Therapeutics' first approval was for Casgevy, a treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT), which it developed in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Before Casgevy, no CRISPR-based gene-editing medicine had been approved. While it became the first, it still faces some challenges. Ex vivo gene-editing therapies require a complex manufacturing and administration process that can only be performed in authorized treatment centers (ATCs). Moreover, they're expensive. Casgevy costs $2.2 million in the U.S. Getting third-party payers on board for that is no easy feat. Still, CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals are making steady progress. As of the second quarter, CRISPR Therapeutics had achieved its goal of activating 75 ATCs. It had also secured reimbursement for eligible patients in 10 countries. The two companies estimate there are roughly 60,000 eligible SCD and TDT patients in the regions they have targeted. Let's say they continue to strike reimbursement deals and can count on third-party coverage for 70% of this target population (42,000 people), then go on to treat another 30% of that group in the next decade (12,600 patients). Assuming they could extend that $2.2 million price tag to those countries, Casgevy could generate more than $27.7 billion over this period. Based on its agreement with Vertex, 40% would go to CRISPR Therapeutics, or roughly $11.1 billion over a decade. That's not bad, but it's not that impressive either. So, while Casgevy could contribute meaningfully to CRISPR Therapeutics' results -- and may even reach blockbuster status at some point -- the medicine may primarily serve as a proof of concept to demonstrate that the biotech's approach can be effective. Substantial progress with its first commercialized product will help the stock price. But the company's performance will depend even more on future clinical and regulatory milestones, especially as it shows with Casgevy that it can manage the intricacies and complexities of marketing gene-editing medicines. Can the pipeline deliver? CRISPR Therapeutics has six candidates in clinical trials, which isn't bad at all for a mid-cap biotech company. One of its leading programs is CTX310, a potential therapy designed to help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with certain conditions. CTX310 is already producing encouraging clinical trial results. Additionally, it's an in vivo medicine, meaning it bypasses the need to harvest patients' cells to manufacture therapies; in vivo gene-editing treatments are easier to handle than their ex vivo counterparts. The company's path to creating life-changing returns hinges on its ability to deliver consistent clinical and regulatory wins over the next few years for CTX310 and other important candidates. If CRISPR Therapeutics can successfully launch several new products in the next five to seven years, its shares are likely to skyrocket. In the meantime, under this scenario, the company would succeed in making gene-editing medicines more mainstream. This would encourage third-party payers to get on board -- and healthcare institutions, and perhaps even governments, to help push for more ATCs, since there'd be a greater need to accommodate these treatments. Can CRISPR Therapeutics achieve this? In my view, the biotech stock is on the riskier side, but does carry significant upside potential. There's a (small) chance the gene-editing specialist will deliver life-changing returns in the next decade, but investors need to hedge their bets. It's best to start by initiating a small position in the stock, then progressively add more if CRISPR Therapeutics lands more wins. Should you invest $1,000 in CRISPR Therapeutics right now? Before you buy stock in CRISPR Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CRISPR Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Kumail Nanjiani recalls meeting Elon Musk while shooting 'Silicon Valley':' ''He didn't like the show'
Kumail Nanjiani said that Elon Musk was "upset" with the opening scene of Silicon Valley. Nanjiani appeared on an episode of Mike Birbiglia's podcast Working It Out, where he recalled some of the experiences he had with tech giants while on the show. "He didn't like the show," Nanjiani said of Musk. The Eternals actor remembered meeting the Tesla CEO, who said the parties he attended were "much cooler" than those depicted on Silicon Valley. The premiere opens with Kid Rock playing at a tech event to a sparse, dead crowd. "It was like, 'Yeah, man. You're one of the richest people in the world. We're, like, losers on the show. Of course your parties are better than my parties. What are you talking about?'" the Big Sick star said. The comedian also met Mark Zuckerberg while doing the show, but made a bad impression. He and his costar Martin Starr had presented at the Breakthrough Awards, which were co-founded by Zuckerberg, in 2016. During the ceremony, the Silicon Valley actors called back to a joke from the season 1 finale about giving hand jobs to an entire conference room of people. They retooled that bit to accommodate the number of scientists at the Breakthrough Awards and bombed. Nanjiani said he doesn't blame the Facebook founder for disliking him after that moment. "He was like, 'What the f--- was that?'" Nanjiani said. "And truly in that moment he was right." Check out the full episode of Working It Out with Kumail Nanjiani below. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly


CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
On GPS: The Trump administration's war on science
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he is cutting nearly half a billion dollars in federally funded mRNA vaccine research. Fareed speaks with former Baltimore Health Commissioner Dr. Leana Wen about the promises of mRNA technology for treating infectious diseases and the impact of cuts on America's scientists.