[frankyg108 (OP)]

Where do, or how did Humans come into existence?

[grizelda]

Probably the occurrence of neurotransmitters in the brain of an early human like H. Habilis led to an emotional rather than instinctive way of relating to survival. Thus we were supplied with a surplus of neurotransmitter making us feel happy when we did right, and a deficit making us feel guilty when we did wrong. This was more efficient than having a whole chain of brain chemistry to deal with each and all our survival needs.

[chris]

I'd recommend giving this programme a listen:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/20130411/

[confusious says]

My thoughts are very contraversial on this, I think we are not from this planet earth originally, and I don't think we came from apes, we can easily prove that one, if we came from apes, how come apes are still apes and chimpanzees are still chimpanzees, if we came from them, they too would have evolved into humans by now. I think we are just one big experiment controlled by aliens, who are still doing things secretly even as we speak. The reason why I have this suggestion is, look around you, we have people of all types of facial features, white caucasion, chinese and mongolian, africa carrobean, aboriginee, but ask yourself why?, why aren't we all basically looking the same?, all I get from people is, well the aboriginee is dark skinned because of the sun, and the mongolian have narrow eye lids because of the harsh winds to protect them, but if you put a white caucasion couple to reproduce generations in Australia, the Aboriginees' native country, they will never change basic skin pigmentation, and similarly if roles and countries were reversed.

[dlorde]

... I don't think we came from apes, we can easily prove that one, if we came from apes, how come apes are still apes and chimpanzees are still chimpanzees, if we came from them, they too would have evolved into humans by now.

If you apply that argument to every organism on Earth (and why not?), you find that it implies that no organism ever evolved into a different species. Which implies, going by the number of extinctions we know of of over the the last 3.5 billion years, that the Earth must have once have been crammed with every species that ever existed. Even aliens would have difficulty with that. Truth is, contemporary primates have evolved over time from a common ancestor just as we did. They haven't always been like they are today.

When you look at the fossil record, all the indications are that creatures do evolve into new species. If other species evolve from common ancestors of similar species, why not us?  If you look at the bones of ancient humans and hominins, you find they fit a pattern of a number of related branches whose features progressively change over time, including a branch that shows increasingly human characteristics, eventually becoming indistinguishable from modern humans. The record isn't complete, there always will be gaps, since not every generation gets fossilized, but if they didn't share common ancestors, where did all those early human prototypes come from? Which is the most plausible explanation - that we evolved like all other species, as the evidence suggests, or - aliens done it? If the latter, how to explain all the evidence pointing the other way?

So, what have you spotted that invalidates over a hundred years of analysis by generations of expert anthropologists and paleontologists ?

... if you put a white caucasion couple to reproduce generations in Australia, the Aboriginees' native country, they will never change basic skin pigmentation, and similarly if roles and countries were reversed.

If you waited a couple of hundred of thousand years their descendants might.

[AntonMaeso]

A chimpanzee are our closest living ancestor. We didn't come from a chimpanzee but we do share a common ancestor. From that ancestor chimpanzees and humans are the only living survivors.

This means that chimpanzees are as evolved as we are however they have evolved for a different environment. In this environment chimpanzees needed different adaptions. For example strong climbing arms where as we became hairless and sweaty to keep our bodies cool.

[cheryl j]

This is not a science based comment. But any time I've gone to the zoo and stood face to face with a gorilla, orangutang or chimpanzee, there is such a striking sense of familiarity. Their mannerisms, their gaze, facial expressions, their hands and fingernails seem so similar to us. I feel it even more in person than watching a video. I mention it not as proof of anything, but it always made me wonder what people thought of other primates before Darwin's theory became widely known. How did they explain their human-like qualities 200 years ago?

[dlorde]

This means that chimpanzees are as evolved as we are however they have evolved for a different environment. In this environment chimpanzees needed different adaptions. For example strong climbing arms where as we became hairless and sweaty to keep our bodies cool.

True enough, but then every living organism is 'as evolved' as every other. We all have a common ancestor and an equal time to evolve, although we've all evolved in different ways.

[damocles]

This is not a science based comment. But any time I've gone to the zoo and stood face to face with a gorilla, orangutang or chimpanzee, there is such a striking sense of familiarity. Their mannerisms, their gaze, facial expressions, their hands and fingernails seem so similar to us. I feel it even more in person than watching a video. I mention it not as proof of anything, but it always made me wonder what people thought of other primates before Darwin's theory became widely known. How did they explain their human-like qualities 200 years ago?

I fully agree with you Cheryl. I have much the same feelings when visiting the zoo. What did people make of it 200 years ago? I think that one fairly common reaction in the European tradition was to regard these creatures as creations of the devil, whose major purpose was to mock humans. This was totally inconsistent with the rest of their belief system, laughably inconsistent. But it allowed the immediate problem to be put aside.

Outside the European tradition, it should be mentioned that "orang utan" comes from a Dyak (Borneo native) word meaning "old man of the forest". Orang utans were regarded as fully human, but obviously different, and very reclusive. A variety of superstitions about orang utans emerged.

[AntonMaeso]

I was just pointing out we didn't evolve from chimpanzees but a common ancestor. They have had different evolutionary pressures which make them chimpanzees not humans.

I also agree that we share some remarkably similar traits to other apes. There is evidence that some form of culture can be transmitted in some primate groups. Chimpanzees can use sound to indicate the the quality and type of food present. Monkeys and chimpanzees recognize when they are being cheated.

However we must also recognize there are differences between other apes and humans. Chimpanzees don't seem to be able to produce language as we do (project Nim). They can learn from each other but it is slower and some people suggest this is a major difference. It is unclear whether other apes can understand someone else's point of view (theory of mind stuff).

It gets even more murky when we consider some tasks considered hard for chimpanzees can be performed better by corvids (crows).

Has anyone checked out the aquatic ape theory?

According to this theory humans went through an aquatic period!!!!

[dlorde]

... Chimpanzees can use sound to indicate the the quality and type of food present. Monkeys and chimpanzees recognize when they are being cheated.

However we must also recognize there are differences between other apes and humans. Chimpanzees don't seem to be able to produce language as we do (project Nim). They can learn from each other but it is slower and some people suggest this is a major difference. It is unclear whether other apes can understand someone else's point of view (theory of mind stuff).

Yes, indeed - although we're increasingly discovering unexpected proto-language abilities (complex signalling) in others species; for example, meerkat sentries can signal the type of danger and the urgency, to quite a detailed level, also using size and colour ('here comes that tall human in the yellow top').

Has anyone checked out the aquatic ape theory?

According to this theory humans went through an aquatic period!!!!

I spend some time looking at the AAT, and it did seem plausible at first - the idea being that humans migrated along coastal routes, becoming fishers and spending a lot of time in the water, and so developing appropriate adaptations. But although you can cherry-pick features and traits to support this idea, you can do the same for the non-aquatic savannah hypothesis, and compared side by side in a more integrated approach, the AAT doesn't hold up well. I'm still sympathetic to possibly extended periods of beach life for some of our ancestors, but the evidence that it had a profound phenotypic influence isn't strong.

Caveat: I came to this conclusion by reading other people's assessments of the evidence for and against, so it reflects the balance of opinion I encountered.