I want to know what was the origin of human..?
552214
Seeing as our solar system must have been formed from the last dying sneeze of a star (as there are very heavy elements that couldn't be present otherwise), thats where we came from. We are basically star snot.
727669
Where and when did human civilization begin? The origin of human civilization is a great mystery presently clouded by the myths of historians. A date is half-heartedly pointed to, 8000 BC, referring to Sumeria, which is only ten thousand years ago. Actually, our modern historians are like the chickadees, which live only for one day and cannot journey outside of that narrow framework. Putting a ten thousand-year cap on human civilization is cramping an ancient, far-reaching heritage into a little box. All human civilization has come from a universal source, whose pre-eminence antedates Sumeria by tens of thousands of years. Like a puzzle, the ancient records and traditions of the offspring cultures can piece this remarkable civilization's illustrious origins, growth, and decay together. Secondly, the cutting edge of archaeological research is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of the original source of all human civilization. With all of this evidence resurfacing from the depths of time, human history is about to be rewritten.
369122
Humans didn't come from apes- but apes and humans share a common ancestor, if you go back a few million years. The difficulty that people have is that they mistake the name of something (which is fixed) to the actual organism. A species is a dynamic flow of genetic material. What we see today is a snapshot of that, in this time frame. When we find a fossil, that is another snapshot from another timeframe. If we found enough fossils we would be able to show the movie of humans and apes diverging from a common ancestor. Given the conditions that are necessary for fossils to form, and the relative rarity of hominids (the group that humans and apes belong to) this is not likely to happen. \n\nYou can see genetc change by looking at the way we breed dogs. Dachunds and Saint Bernards are both Canis lupus, but a male dachund would find it near impossible to mate with a Saint Bernard. If all other dog breeds were wiped out, they would speciate, evolving into different species. One could argue they are well on the way. Inheritance can be observed by the similarity people share with their parents. \n\nAdam and Eve, sadly, are a myth. What race would they be?
1167284
Logical proof of human creation.\n\nA solid fact is: men and women exist. No one can deny this. We do not consider birth, but the very start of people. It means, purely logically seen\nStatement 1: either an intelligence created us.\nStatement 2: either we created ourselves\nStatement 3: either we have existed always; there was no begin.\nStatement 4: either we evaluated from something primitive by chance.\nStatement 5: or we evolved from something primitive by selection\nThe five statements exclude each other. Other possibilities do not exist.\n\nStatement 3\nThere is not any proof or any clue, that shows, that we have had eternal life. Nobody believes in eternal life. So we can exclude this possibility.\n\nStatement 2\nIf we created ourselves then the only possibilities are\nStatement 6: we existed before we created ourselves;\nStatement 7: we did not yet exist before we created ourselves.\nStatements 6 and 7 exclude each other\n\nStatement 6: there is no need to create ourselves, because we existed already. And that implies eternal life, which we excluded. So number 6 is excluded.\nStatement 7: we did not yet exist before we created ourselves. Then we were not able to create ourselves so number 7 is excluded.\nSo number 2 is excluded.\n\nProvisional conclusion\nOnly\nStatement 1: either an intelligence created us.\nStatement 4: either we evolved from something primitive by chance.\nStatement 5: or we evolved from something primitive by selection\nare still to investigate.\n\nStatement 4\nNature tends to create chaos, never to order. Scientists who deal with statistics calculated expectation times – before people come out – much longer than the age of the universe calculated by astronomers. The earth seems much younger than the universe.\nThe greatest problem is how cyclic biological processes have to be started. If one of the parts of the chain is still missing, there is no chain at all. The chain has to exist immediately.\nHowever the possibility of this kind of evolution is not exactly zero, the chance on our existence is so extremely small, that we have to exclude this way.\n \nStatement 5\nWe should have been evolved from primitive ancestors by selection. The same arguments as with statement 5 occur. Primitive creatures themselves are not able to organise better life forms. The selection should have been determined by survival of the fittest. Nevertheless now the chance of evolution seem to be a little bit smaller than evolution with only change. The expectation times before people come out remain much longer than the age of the universe.\nAnd the: who or what makes the selection rules?\n\nEnd conclusion\nThe only possibility that remains, is the creation by a very clever creator. This has been proven by logical arguments. More scientific if is not possible.
215240
Neanderthals are thought to not be predecessors of humans at all.\n\nThe FIRST ancestor would be the Universal Common Ancestor.  Evolution is founded upon the idea of commonality of descent; that all life on earth is related, descended from a single parent organism.  Such an organism cannot be known, because so small an organism leaves no meaningful fossils, and one would expect it to be extinct by now.  I can only say that the first ancestor of humans is also the first ancestor of cats, dogs, bees, trees, bacteria, and mushrooms.
252595
Clarify! Do you mean human as in Homo sapiens, or human in the sense of "hominid"? Big difference in the answers. And I don't think many of them have cutesy names like Lucy.
527654
For a fact noone really know when man really was created or how. We have records but they only date back so far then nothing. This a very good question lol. As for all the animals we have today and where they come from we can track them back but not man only so far and then nothing. It is very odd right?
1145343
Humanity, pre-history.
971103
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
1125363
No one knows when, where or how human life began on this planet. It's all speculation. Some of the theories are based on scientific evidence, but everyone knows that they are just possible scenarios and full of gaps.\nSomeone lied to you by saying that "white people were allways apriciated" and that "black people...were the "sclaves" of white people. It just nonsense that racists use to assert that black people are sub-human or animals. \nIf you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans ever, and that God created them, and we are all direct descendants, and no other humans can or have ever existed on this planet; then you're basically screwed because nothing in life will ever make sense.
900831
There is some debate on this, but from my Archaeology class, I learned that the first real human (homo sapien) found is approximately 160,000-120,000 years old.  This skeleton was found at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa.  \n\nI hope this helps!
652196
Human beings did not descend from chimpanzees.  Rather they had a common ancestor.  It appears from recent research that initially they were not occupy seperate genus, and continued to interbreed.  Probably around the time the Great Rift Valley opened up, they divurged sufficiently for this to cease.  A likely explanation is that man, tho' genetically nearly idential to his chimp cousin at this point, was sufficiently more adaptable that he was able to sustain himself on the east side of the valley, which had become a savannah rather than rain forest.
474165
Humans, or human beings, are classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal.\n\nLike most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.\n\nHumans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and deities, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.\n\nHumans are commonly referred to as persons or people, and collectively as man, mankind, humankind, humanity, or the human race. Until the 20th century, human was only used adjectivally ("pertaining to mankind"). As an adjective, "human" is used neutrally (as in "human race"), but "human" and especially "humane" may also emphasize positive aspects of human nature, and can be synonymous with "benevolent" (as opposed to "inhumane"; cf. humanitarian).\n\nIn general, the word people is a collective noun used to define a specific group of humans. However, when used to refer to a group of humans possessing a common ethnic, cultural or national unitary characteristic or identity, "people" is a singular noun, and as such takes an "s" in the plural; (examples: "the English-speaking peoples of the world", "the indigenous peoples of Brazil"). A distinction is also maintained in philosophy and law between the notions "human being", or "man", and "person". The former refers to the species, while the latter refers to a rational agent.\n\nJuvenile male humans are called boys, adult males men (not to be confused with the gender-neutral man or mankind), juvenile females girls, and adult females women.\n\n[edit]\nBiology\nMain article: Human biology \n[edit]\nPhysiology and genetics\nMain articles: Human anatomy, Human physical appearance and Genetics of humans \n \nAn old diagram of a male human skeleton.Human body types vary substantially. Although body size is largely determined by genes, it is also significantly influenced by environmental factors such as diet and exercise. The average height of a North American adult female is 162 centimetres (5 feet 4 inches), and the average weight is 62 kilograms (137 pounds). Human males are typically larger than females: the average height and weight of a North American adult male is 175 centimeters (5 feet 9 inches) and 78 kilograms (172 pounds).\n\nHumans are capable of fully bipedal locomotion, thus leaving their arms available for manipulating objects using their hands, aided especially by opposable thumbs. Because human p
1089495
Darwin's "Origin of Species" barely mentions humans - he knew it was a sensitive subject. Actually all he said was "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." He never intended to publish on the evolution of humankind but he got into in his 1871 work "The Descent of Man"  You can read it online:\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/\n\nIn summary he says, "species are the modified descendants of other species."
272319
First of all, there is no such thing as a "missing link," anthropologists have known that for yeras. Humans are a type of ape (in the superfamily Hominoidea, which contains gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas). The last common ancestor has not been found or definitely defined, but is expected to be found to have existed between 4.5 and 6 million years ago. Examples from that era include the Australopithecus (one species is the famous "Lucy").
558886
A human being or homo sapien is a species of mammal found on Earth.  It is a primate-like biped with less fur than other primates.\n\nIf by this question you mean 'how do we define a person?' this is a much more complex issue.  Some have suggested that a person is defined by their intelligence but this creates an ethical issues for those born without a brain or with learning difficulties, are these people?  Of course they are.  Others talk of the soul, but where do we find the soul and what exactly is it?  What would  a person be like if they had no soul?  Is it the body, brain or the electrical impulses produced by the brain commonly called the mind that make a person a person?\n\nIt seems as this is a philosophical question, there is no right or wrong answer but it is important to be aware of every angle.
598161
neanderthals don't exactly look like humans.They had bony ridges above their eyes,broad noses,and big,strong chests.\n\nCro-magnons are the first modern human.they were found in Europe.their names comes from the cave in southwestern France where their bones were first found.