Humans are unique among life on this planet, and much remains a mystery as to how we evolved. What steps came first? Why did we evolve this way and not that direction? Why are we the only human species left? What other paths might we have gone down in our evolution? And what directions might we go from here?
10. Where do modern humans come from?

The most bitterly debated question in the discipline of human evolution is likely over where modern humans evolved. The out-of-Africa hypothesis maintains that modern humans evolved relatively recently in Africa and then spread around the world, replacing existing populations of archaic humans. The multiregional hypothesis contends that modern humans evolved over a broad area from archaic humans, with populations in different regions mating with their neighbors to share traits, resulting in the evolution of modern humans. The out-of-Africa hypothesis currently holds the lead, but proponents of the multiregional hypothesis remain strong in their views.
9. Who was the first hominid?

Scientists are uncovering more and more ancient hominids all the time -- here meaning bipeds including humans, our direct ancestors and closest relatives. They strive to find the earliest one, to help answer that most fundamental question in human evolution -- what adaptations made us human, and in what order did they happen?
8. Did we have sex with Neanderthals?

Did we interbreed? Does our species possess any genes leftover from our extinct cousins? Scientists have suggested that perhaps the Neanderthals did not die out, but instead were absorbed were absorbed into modern humanity.
7. Why did modern humanity expand past Africa about 50,000 years ago?

Roughly 50,000 years ago, modern humans expanded out of Africa, spreading rapidly across most of the world's lands to colonize all continents except Antarctica, reaching even the most remote Pacific islands. A number of scientists conjecture this migration was linked with a mutation that transformed our brains, leading to our modern, complex use of language and enabling more sophisticated tools, art and societies. The more popular view suggests hints of such modern behavior existed long before this exodus, and that humanity instead had crossed a threshold in terms of population size in Africa that made such a revolution possible.
6. What is the hobbit?

Is the 'hobbit' -- the nickname given to diminutive skeletons found on the Indonesian isle of Flores in 2003 -- in fact an extinct human species, enough to be called Homo floresiensis? Are these skeletons just examples of deformed Homo sapiens? Are they a different species than us, but perhaps not an extinct human species and instead as separate as chimpanzees are? Solving this mystery could help shed light on the radical paths human evolution may have taken.
5. Is human evolution accelerating?

Recent evidence suggests that humanity is not only still evolving, but that human evolution is actually accelerating, speeding up to 100 times historical levels after agriculture spread. A number of scientists challenge the strength of this evidence, saying that it remains difficult to ascertain whether or not certain genes really have recently grown in prominence because they offer some adaptive benefit. Still, if human evolution is accelerating, the question becomes why? Diet and diseases may be some of the pressures that caused humans to change.
4. Why did our closest relatives go extinct?

Roughly 24,000 years ago, our species, Homo sapiens, was not alone in the world -- our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, (Homo neanderthalensis) were still alive. The so-called 'hobbit' found in Indonesia might also have been a member of the genus Homo, and it apparently survived until as recently as 12,000 years ago. So why did they die and we survive? Did infections or radical shifts in their environments kill them off? Or did our species do away with them? Some evidence exists for both scenarios, but no conclusion is agreed upon.
3. What happened to our hair?

Humans are unique for looking naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. So why did this nakedness evolve? One suggestion is that our ancestors shed hairiness to keep cool when venturing across the hot savannahs of Africa. Another is that losing our fur coats helped free us parasite infestations and the diseases they can spread. One unorthodox idea even suggests human nakedness developed after our ancestors briefly adapted for a streamlined life in the water, although most aquatic mammals of roughly human size actually possess dense fur.
2. Why do humans walk on two legs?

Our ancestors evolved an upright posture well before our large brains or stone tools even appeared. The question, then: Why stand and walk on two legs when our ape cousins get by on four limbs? Walking as bipeds might actually use less energy than movement on all fours does. Freeing up the arms might also have enabled our ancestors to carry more food. Standing upright might even have helped them control their temperature better by reducing the amount of skin directly exposed to the sun.
1. Why did we grow large brains?

There is no question that our large brains have provided humans an extraordinary advantage in the world. Still, the human brain is an incredibly expensive organ, taking up only about 2 percent of the body's mass yet using more than a fifth of the body's energy, and until about 2 million years ago none of our ancestors had a brain larger than an ape's when compared to body size. So what kicked off the push for a larger brain? One possibility is that increased smarts helped our ancestors make better tools. Another is that larger brains helped us interact better with each other. Perhaps radical changes in the environment also demanded that our ancestors deal with a shifting world.

Genesis Chapter 2
Creationism answers nothing. It leaves us with only more questions, unless we choose to be ignorant of them. Evolution effectively describes everything, with the only remaining questions being the details of how it shaped our world. Abandon assumptions and critically analyze everything -- including the mysticism of your parents contained within "Genesis Chapter 2".
Because it is so reasonable that eyes decided to see and ears thought it a good idea to hear and the nose wanted to smell and the tongue knew how to taste and of course a means to digest food and pleasure and pain and...evolution? really?
Eyes didn't just decide to see, evolution happens due to very small genetic mutations that lead to more advanced organisms. At least try to understand the theory before you go bashing it you ignorant fuck.
why hasnt anyone realize yet that you need both evolution AND creationism to have a theory of existence that makes sense... yes, people evolved, but where did the first organism that started it all come from? to say that we all came from animals is only partially accurate, as anyone who studies evolution will know ( multiple lines of evo, genetic mutation, etc), but without some underlying reason behind it, we have to accept life as a paradox. and im not certain humanity can do that. there is no 100% accurate answer to either side, but when used in tandem with each other, we reach a conclusion: for better or worse, evolution made us, creationism made us man...
only anonymous for lack of an account.. Shane Slosson, anti_hero_kid@yahoo.com... flame away, hatahs
evolution is THE only theory which explains our entire understanding of biology and existence.
it not only encompasses the ideas of natural selection of phenotypic traits--and their underlying genetic DNA (or even perhaps RNA) sequences--but also the chemical principles which support the theory.
While evolution provides an explanation for how organisms, rather populations, may change over time, the ideas of self-assembly of simpler organic molecules offer reasons for the mechanisms which make this change possible. Molecular self assembly of organic molecules, such as DNA, is not only vital to the function of living cells but also explains how single cells may have first developed.
The Miller-Urey experiment has shown that under primordial conditions simple organic molecules can be formed from elements and matter which had existed on Earth before "life". Through random interactions and collisions with other molecules, larger and more complex organic molecules can form. The process is of course completely random. At the molecular level these interactions occur at an inconceivable rate. So, it is possible that an infinite combination of molecules had come together, governed by the laws of physics and their own chemical properties, in order to form such complex molecules, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, etc.
These bioorganic molecules, then, can interact futher with each one another effectively adding another step in the evolution process. For example, phospholipids, which are amphiphilic, interact in an aqueous environment to produce micelles or bilipid layers which provide evidence of precursors to cellular membranes.
It is the physical and chemical principles which provide the underlying reason for the formation of life. It is not a paradox but the result of the "productive" interactions of matter to form more and more complex molecules over billions of years to produce the diverse biosphere of organisms we see today.
Any theory of evolution does not factually state anything...accept characterization of adaptation...If we came from apes then why do apes still exist....and if apes being one side of the human evolution chain, and humans being the other side exist at the same time....why are there no "in between" species still being created today...(ape human hybrid) if we came from them, than they should still be giving birth to the next step up, and it should continue like it supposedly did 12, 000 years ago....Still to this day scientists will never be able to answer the creation of the universe...yeah i know it is the collision of this and that...but what started the collision?...and the molecules?...and when u answer that...what created the answer?...Our brains are big...but we are still dumb asses that think we can figure it all out only to fail...It is all theory
matter is neither created nor destroyed. it's a fundamental principle.
I think you mean energy....matter you can mess with as you see fit.
matter aswell, if you break an atom you get a nuclear explosion
I'm tired of the creationist's same dumb BS questions. "If we came from apes than why are apes still around?" You'll find the answer if you actually read a little bit. Right now there are apes and humans. The prehistoric apes we and the current apes came from do not exist anymore. Humans and apes both have a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This population got separated and so they evolved in their own separate ways evolving into apes and humans. There wouldn't be any "in-between" species now would there? This ancient creature probably did not look like any of the apes around today.
"It is not a paradox but the result of the "productive" interactions of matter to form more and more complex molecules over billions of years to produce the diverse biosphere of organisms we see today."
this is true, scienceistheonlygod, but the paradox is that scientifically, nothing can be created from nothing. there must be matter there to form from.. so, if you need matter to form matter, were did the first matter come from? there is NO scientific answer to that, and for that reason existence on any level should be impossible. even if you believe the big bang theory, which i personally feel only answers some of the questions of our universe, where did the first atom come from? and before you creationists start thinking you win, i ask you this. if God made us, who created God?
shane slosson, anti_hero_kid@yahoo.com
...least i have chicken
Shane, you have great points there.
Life, as well as the existense of everything that exists, is filled with paradoxes. The simple fact is that we will never figure them out. The answer to the metaphysical question of how life began will never be unveiled.
Personally, I do believe in evolution. It's logical and simple if one just bothers to read a few books. I also do believe that life began as a sequence of chemical reactions and physical laws. There really is no other logical answer to this.
However, physics and chemistry fail to answer the most obvious questions. The metaphysical ones: How did it all begin? How can something come out of nothing? The funny thing is that religions answer this question by pulling the "God" card out. But if god does exist, something must have created him in the first place, and so forth. So your god actually answers nothing, it just gives more questions to ask.
It's also ridiculous to questionize evolution based on religious "facts". How can someone honestly think that the real answers can be found in a book written a few thousand years ago? How can you fail to realize how many times the actual contents of the bible have been changed during that time? What if the next print of the bible said something else, perhaps because of a misprint? You do realize that the bible was written by actual human beings in an age without printers? The whole concept of a holy bible is like a broken telephone.
These were just my opinions, and I'm sorry if I somehow offended someone. I do respect religions as guidelines for morales and laws (to a certain extent, ofcourse), but creationism is just taking it too far. Why would you rather believe in an old book than common sense? Even though I can't provide anyone with a better answer for the reason for life, I'm positive that a 2000 year old book can't provide you with the real answers.
- Robby
Anyone who is familiar with biochemistry, evolution, physical chemistry, and genetics will know that creationism is BS, and that God did not create man.
Yes, you can create humans from nothing. Now, not nothing as in literally nothing (laws of conservation of mass and energy disallow this) but nothing as in simple elements and compounds. Milley and Urey proved that you can create complex compounds from simpler ones spontaneously, and if you look at the individual chromosomes from our related species you can see that the only difference in some spots can be accounted for by widely known genetic processes (such as chromosome inversion).
As far as how it started before life at all began, well then we really don't know and creationism is just about as plausable as the Big Bang theory, but to say that a God created man is idiotic.
"...least i have chicken"
touche, my friend. chicken trumps all :P can i have a wing?
Shane Slosson, anti_hero_kid@yahoo.com
darwin never explains how the fish became GOD and made man thou?!?!?!?!?!?!