Video games are unparalleled as an interactive medium and can serve as potential educational tools through intelligent game design and the players’ immersion in the game world (e.g., Mayo 2009; Rassalle 2021; Rubio-Campillo 2020; Winter 2021). At the same time, video games, like any media, might also misinform (e.g., Aron 2020; Dennis 2019; Emery and Reinhard 2016). In this review, I present my impressions of the game Ancestors: A Humankind Odyssey (Panache Digital Games 2019), specifically regarding its portrayal of paleoanthropological themes. In preparing this review, I played the game in its entirety and subsequently interviewed the developers in order to clarify their intentions when designing the game (Patrice Désilets and Marc-André De Blois, personal communication 2021). Using the medium of video games, is it possible to make a “perfectly” accurate simulation of human evolution? Perhaps, but that may not matter anyway. In my view, video games, as exemplified by Ancestors, have great potential for exploring the basic components of human evolution and to reach and inspire a wider public that might otherwise learn very little about the subject matter.

More than a decade of exacting scientific research involving paleontological fragments and ancient DNA has lately produced a series of pronouncements about a purportedly novel population of archaic hominins dubbed “the Denisova.” The science involved in these matters is both technically stunning and, socially, at times a bit reckless. Here I discuss the responsibilities which scientists incur when they make inductively risky pronouncements about the different relative contributions by Denisovans to genomes of members of apparent subpopulations of current humans (i.e., the so-called “races”). This science is sensational: it is science which empirically speculates, to the public delight’s and entertainment, about scintillating topics such as when humans evolved, where we came from, and who else we were having sex with during our early hominin history. An initial characterization of sensational science emerges from my discussion of the case, as well as a diagnosis of an interactive phenomenon termed amplified inductive risk.

The discovery of fossil hand bones from an early human ancestor at Olduvai Gorge in 1960, at the same level as primitive stone tools, generated a debate about the role of tools in the evolution of the human hand that has raged to the present day. Could the Olduvai hand have made the tools? Did the human hand evolve as an adaptation to tool making and tool use? The debate has been fueled by anatomical studies comparing living and fossil human and nonhuman primate hands, and by experimental observations. These have assessed the relative abilities of apes and humans to manufacture the Oldowan tools, but consensus has been hampered by disagreements about how to translate experimental data from living species into quantitative models for predicting the performance of fossil hands. Such models are now beginning to take shape as new techniques are applied to the capture, management and analysis of data on kinetic and kinematic variables ranging from hand joint structure, muscle mechanics, and the distribution and density of bone to joint movements and muscle recruitment during manipulative behaviour. The systematic comparative studies are highlighting a functional complex of features in the human hand facilitating a distinctive repertoire of grips that are apparently more effective for stone tool making than grips characterising various nonhuman primate species. The new techniques are identifying skeletal variables whose form may provide clues to the potential of fossil hominid hands for one-handed firm precision grips and fine precision manoeuvering movements, both of which are essential for habitual and effective tool making and tool use.