Who are we? The question of human nature seems to haunt all disciplines. That may tell us how very “human” the question is. Answers vary widely. Yet scientists—anthropologists, geneticists, ethologists, and developmental and evolutionary biologists—rely on observations and empirical data. Their conclusions thus seem more objective. Biologically, humans are primates. Linnaeus perceived that, even before Darwin. We share our anatomies and physiologies with apes and chimps. But Darwin gave this relationship special meaning. He transformed abstract taxonomy into material genealogy. Ever since, we have characterized our species by its ancestry. Identity and history have merged. “Who we are” is now also the story of human origins: where we came from, how, and why. Each new finding in human evolution seems to fascinate us. The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes was big news, appearing on the cover of Time magazine. Then came the Neanderthal genome. “Ardi” (Ardipithecus ramidus) created a public sensation by replacing Lucy as the earliest known complete hominid skeleton, displayed dramatically on the cover of Science. Then the human-like ape Australopithecus sediba sparked new controversy. Add to this buzz new exhibit halls on human origins at both the American Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian. And a cascade of books, whose topics range from surveying new fossils, vestigial traits, and genomes to profiling the uniqueness of our brains, bones, genome, and behavior. And television specials. We always seems eager for new perspectives. But perhaps it is time to reassess this sacred bovine: that each new finding yields more-complete understanding of human nature. We might well reflect on our past efforts—with their notable errors and flawed assumptions. What might we learn from those missteps instead? Benjamin Franklin was reportedly among the first to celebrate humans as the only toolmaking animal. Later, evolution seemed to make sense of that. Our hands—especially with their opposable thumbs—once used for climbing trees, seem to have found a new adaptive function: to grasp tools, to shape them, to modify the environment and so enhance survival.