What does evidence suggest about human orgins?

Evolution There is no evidence, if we were all created by a big boom then we dont have a purpose in life, but if there is a God then we have purpose and meaning. Scientists cannot prove evolution exists because there is no way to prove it.

Another answer

Well, humans do exist. We know that. And The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the only scientific theory explaining how any species comes about. We mustn't consider it too magical, where Evolution by Natural Selection is just one form of magic rather than another. Evolution is a perfectly normal process (inherent in all organism lineages) and humans are not unique enough to warrant anything more 'magical' than Evolution to pop into existence.

Ah, the evidence you ask for. Well the pre-runner argument for evolution is that we are so similar to all our fellow organisms on the planet. We have hair and feed our young on milk and differentiated teeth - therefore (the argument goes) we must have a common ancestor with all those who have hair and feed young on milk...............

We also have a backbone - therefore we have a common ancestor with all those that had a backbone..............

And on the DNA level, our DNA is composed of chemicals called nitrogenous bases called adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, same as all other organisms - therefore we have a common ancestor with all DNA-containing organisms. In fact, genetic code is a very powerful argument as it is the very foundation of organisms themselves. From the genetic code comes a sequence of amino acids, which builds enzymes which keep the chemical goings-on going on in the cells of an organism. What is the likelihood that genetic codes COULD be so similar unless successful codes are passed on generation by generation while less successful codes die out. And how could we be here along with our fellows the Pan troglodytes (with such EXTRAORDINARILY similar DNA code unless we have a common ancestor with them? If the lineage leading to chimpanzees and the lineage leading to humans started at the beginning of life and never met up along the way, how could we be so similar today? The unlikelihood of millions of similarities unless in a world of common ancestry forces us to accept the idea of common ancestry.

Forget the abstruseness of DNA if you find it abstruse. Look at the anatomy - we are so similar to chimpanzees, we must have a common ancestor with them.

We have a circulatory system like that of a reptile partway through our embryonic development. How could we do that UNLESS we have the genetic code necessary to build a reptilian circulatory system? And then it is modified into a mammalian circulatory system. We are covered in hair (lanugo) near to our birth but still within the womb. These ideas come from Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True - an extraordinary book. They are evidence for our mammalian evolution from an apeworld past and from a purely mammalian past and from a reptilian past.

And then there are the fossils - again check out Why Evolution is True. Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus. And there's also Australopithecus. We have 'parabolic' (rounded) bites - what I mean is the shape of missing sandwich left when you bite a sandwich. Chimpanzees and gorillas have square bites. Australopithecus had an intermediate bite. We assume that square bite was around earlier and left a lineage going on to Pan and Gorilla still with square bites. Humans have a square bite common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Australopithecus shows the transition from square bite to rounded bite. What an endless and fascinating pile of evidence for evolution.