Genetic data have been increasingly used in the last decades to reconstruct (and tell) what is presented as the “evolutionary history of humans”. The central role of genetic data has become particularly clear in the last three decades, with the increasing role played by genomic and paleogenomic data in dominant narratives. In this chapter, we argue that genetic data are powerful and defend their use to improve our understanding of human evolutionary history. For instance, geneticists have shown that the human species is surprisingly less diverse genetically than chimpanzees and orangutans, despite a much larger population size and distribution. They have also shown that humans exhibit very little genetic differences, even at long geographic distances compared to chimpanzees. However, we also question a number of statements made by some geneticists in the last decades. Genetic data have indeed been used to make strong and possibly misleading claims even when well-supported alternative interpretations of the genetic data existed. Here, we try to clarify some important results that genetic data brought, but we also discuss the links between the assumptions of the models used by geneticists and the statements they make. We do this by using two example cases: the inference of ancient bottlenecks and hybridization events. The inferences made by geneticists can be problematic when the model assumptions are unlikely to hold and when departures from such assumptions significantly change the conclusions and inferences. This may lead a whole scientific community to characterize events that may never have taken place. We discuss whether genetic data unambiguously support the different bottlenecks that have been invoked by geneticists, and the theory that some ancient Homo sapiens populations admixed with Neanderthals. We also consider these issues from a wider point of view in which we discuss the notions of pluralism, monism, and indeterminacy or identifiability in science and in population genetics. Given the increasing importance of genomic and archeogenomic data in the construction of narratives that are themselves increasingly used to define national or ethnic identities, it seems urgent to develop a more critical attitude towards their interpretation. We also call for a research programme where sociologists of science could help clarify why and how a community moved from the rejection of Neanderthal admixture, when genetic data did not allow us to do so, to its near-universal acceptance today, when genetic data still do not seem to allow us to make such strong claims.