That really depends on what features of Homo sapiens you are focusing on and at which point in time are you referring to. For instance, are you referring to the eventual evolution of H.sapiens specifically, or the evolution of 'human traits' through the hominin line?

There are numerous theories concerning the evolution of humans, at numerous levels. Some theories focus narrowly at the evolution of specific traits, such as bipedalism (as one example); whilst some are focused broadly, at how the entire human organism formed.

When considering the popular theories of human evolution today it is clear that theory has changed dramatically overtime, most significantly from uni-factorial to multi-factorial theories. Today the impetus is on trying to understand and reconstruct the environments and ecosystems in which humans evolved. This approach allows a greater understanding of the selection pressures that favoured the adoption of specific traits - traits that eventually led to the emergence of H.sapiens.

Multi-factorial approaches demand a multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates understanding of how, why, where and when environmental changes occurred on Earth. This information can be derived from lacustrine deposits, sea cores, ice cores and paelosols - to name but a few. These data are then complemented by local environmental data such as fossils, and, in particular, pollen and leaf wax lipids. By collating this data an environmental profile for a specific area can be inferred. Using this data, a greater understanding of the environmental, and most significantly: the environmental changes, that our ancestors lived in and endured, can be gained. By understanding these changes, and analyzing specific human traits, it is possible to make educated assertions as to what pressures drove the evolution of certain traits.

Evolution, however, doesn't only occur through natural selection, but also mutation, genetic drift and gene flow. This is extremely useful because mutations can be tracked through time in order to create a timescale for the arrival of some traits, that are comparable to environmental changes. This is however, a very big task, especially when millions of years are in the way, and when the temporo-spatial relevance of environmental indicators are essential.

A great place to start, would be a broad outlook. Theories such as The Turnover Pulse Hypothesis, Deep Lakes Hypothesis, Aridity Hypothesis, Variability Selection Hypothesis and consider the Red Queen Hypothesis (although aimed at short generational timescales insects, it is still very interesting). These theories all try to outline the circumstances for the emergence of the human organism, not just a specific trait, making them a great background for further research.

Also it is very worth while looking at the Hominin Sites and Paleolakes Drilling Project, in order to assess some current limitations.

Hop that helps and good luck.

Dear Seger,

Recently I read a great paper that discuss some of these issues, making comparisons from fishes to humans.

The name of the paper is:

Is evolutionary biology becoming too politically correct? A reflection on the scala naturae, phylogenetically basal clades, anatomically plesiomorphic taxa, and ‘lower’ animals. By Diogo et al., 2014. Biol. Rev. (2014). doi: 10.1111/brv.12121

Look at "The 1000-year explosion", by Cochran and Harpending.

Dear Bengt, I think we're beginning to answer this question. Just consider human & their ancestors as we would consider all other mammals, in a non-anthropocentric way: then we see that archaic Homo (erectus cs) got typical characteristics of littoral animals: very heavy skeletons (pachyosteosclerosis), flat & dorsally shifted brain-skulls (platycephaly), dramatic brain enlargement, projecting nostrils (external nose & projecting mid-face in neandertals), flat femora (platymeria), very wide torsos & pelvises, large lungs, flat feet, "fast" intercontinental dispersal, fossils amid edible shellfish (even marine shellfish sometimes in spite of fossilisation biases), etc.: early-Pleistocene apparently followed the coasts & from there ventrured inland along the rivers (e.g. seasonally initially).   What are the differences between these littoral erectus-like "archaic" ancestors & sapiens? Longer & straighter legs, narrower bodies, smaller lungs, eyes directed more downward instead of cranially, basi-cranial flexion, longer arms etc.: very long legs are typcial of wading-birds, and eyes directed downward could have been an adaptation to discover foods in very shallow water (avoiding light refraction), e.g. shells & fish (cf compound  & distance weapons, e.g. harpoons). We discussed all this in a few recent papers (2013 London conference "Human Evolution" on our waterside past, with Donald Johanson & David Attenborough, e.g. see file attached.

I think that modern human anatomy cannot be explained through "natural" evolution and adaptation to particular style of food gathering. Looking at complicated birth process, very long period of childhood, rather short reproductive stage and ability to mate at any season, it is possible to conclude that long period of H. sapiens evolution happened in rather developed society and safe environment capable to protect kids and support life of creatures unable to withstand the competition with other animals without huge amount of life-learned skills, knowledge, and social rules characteristic of modern humans.

Bengt, you also asked about tools.

The comparative approach: tool use (sometimes even manufacture) is seen in chimps (palm nuts), capuchin monkeys (oysters, nuts), sea-otters (shell-crayfish). Stone tools (Homo) and/or thick enamel (many Mio-Pliocene hominoids) suggest durophagy (nuts, shells), see our 2011 paper (with Stephen Munro) "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO J compar hum Biol 62:237-247. 

Later tools include harpoons/spears (cf long sharp beaks of herons?) & distance weapons: spearing fish at a distance, wading in very shallow waters? (weapons gradually permitting more excursions on dry land? see "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" Hum Evol 28:237-266, 2013).

As others have noted, this is a simple question, and has many complex potential answers. If you are using Google to address this, perhaps you want an abbreviated suggestion about a couple of aspects that are highly elaborated in anatomically modern humans compared with other animals and our recent pre-modern hominin ancestors. Humans have elaborate behaviors that are much more variable than those of most other animals. Unlike most other animals, behavioral changes are not associated with any significant biological differences among living populations or speciation of modern humans. Except for the most extreme high latitude environments, modern humans inhabit all areas of earth. We have shifted aspects of our behaviors to create geographically appropriate ways of using information, mobility, sociality, feeding strategies, and technology that are often unique to particular environmental challenges. This lability in behavioral expression makes use of similar components of what was unhelpfully defined as "culture" in earlier anthropology. A more sanguine and evolutionary informed  simple definition comes from the archaeologist Lewis Binford's statement that "culture represents our extra-somatic means of adaptation". Each of the components of modern human behaviors (i.e., language, information sharing, planning, the sexual division of labor, food sharing, technology, etc.) provides particular adaptations to the many places that hunter-gatherers have colonized. As an over-arching summary of an important way modern humans behave, cooperation is elaborated in ways well beyond those of other animals. Our recognition of a wide variety of blood kin, in-laws, and the capacity to extend kinship categories to unrelated individuals who wander into places where a particular people live demonstrates the importance of identifying individuals by relatedness and potential obligations. Chimpanzees can calculate kinship to ~2nd cousins and rarely any further. Humans employ a range of cooperative interactions at short time scales, deep-lifetime or multiple generational time scales, in relation to immediate or future needs, at a small geographic ranges and across large territorial or extra-terrritorial spatial associations. Cooperation in raising children is likely one of the important adaptations that allowed humans to out-reproduce the other great apes. Most of these behaviors are very difficult to infer from the paleoanthropological record of our biological changes and archaeological patterns. It is unlikely that they simply developed in "junior" forms of their modern expressions, that would be teleological. Which of our cooperative behaviors evolved when and under what contexts is a set of very challenging paleoanthropological problems. 

Rusty-   Cooperating in raising children, food sharing, sex.division of labour... are seen in other animals, e.g. social insects, wolves, naked mole-rats etc. Planning, calculating kinship, technology... are seen in a lot of spp (unconsciously, e.g hibernating, body odour, nests...). Saying that these behaviors are "modern human" is too anthropocentric. Even human language, when we analyse it into more elementary parts, can be compared to other animals (i.c. gibbons, littoral animals), e.g. see M.Vaneechoutte cs 2011 "Seafood, diving, song and speech"pp.181-9 in M.Vaneechoutte cs eds "Was Man more aquatic in the past? Fifty years after Hardy" eBook Bentham Sci.Publ. (see attachment): the preadaptations to human language are not unexpected in view of our evolution:

(a) Darwin (& many others) already suggested that early-hominoid gibbon-like song (>18 Ma?) contained important elements of human speech: loud & varied sounds, rhythm & tone, dialog.

(b) Much later, early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along coasts & rivers (e.g. barnacles, marine & freshwater molluscs at Mojokerto 1.8 Ma), where they parttime waded bipedally & dived (explaining voluntary breathing) for waterside & shallow aquatic foods (rich in brain-specific nutrients e.g. DHA) and got oral adaptations for swallowing soft & slippery foods: small mouth, globular tongue & smooth vaulted palate, closed parabolic tooth-row + incisiform canines, hyoidal descent etc., allowing production of labial, dental, palatal, uvular etc consonants.

Mark-yes, elements of behaviors that humans have elaborated are certainly present in other animals. Cooperative breeders are a good example. However, in most cooperative breeders the number of less-related kin who assist with raising young are much lower than in the extensive and habitual food, labor, and other energy sharing behaviors of humans. Additionally, these occur very frequently outside of provisioning of young in humans, so that all modern humans are reliant on food sharing to some extent. One of the other unique aspects of human cooperative breeding is that pre-reproductively mature individuals, children prior to adolescence, engage in activities that support siblings, reduce energy expenditures by mothers, do provide resources to other kin, and perform some self-provisioning. In most other animal cooperative breeders, helpers are sexually mature individuals who forgo their own reproduction for a number of potential reasons. In relation to language, certainly other animals have communication, but there is significant debate over how it compares tot the complexities of human language. The use of the terms communication vs. language underscore these apparent differences. Some animals do appear to have word-like utterances as well as complex calling repertoires and uses of communication. However, even research with cetaceans has not identified many critical elements of human language. They lack recursion, the potentially infinite recombination of phonemes to create new words for new things, concepts, or ideas (imaginary objects), and the complexities of syntax. Humans use basic elements of behaviors present in other animals, but it does appear we have shifted the complexities and variation in their expressions across a great diversity of environments. In relation to you last point, I do not see any causal relationships between novel coastal adaptations of the Upper Paleolithic and the evolution of current morphology of the human mouth and throat organs (more aquatic ape hypothesis?) 

Human intercontinental dispersal was probably early Pleistocene: 1.8 Ma are Aïn-Hanech in Algeria (coastal plain), Dmanisi in Georgia (large river confluence near the Black-Caspian sea connection), Lake Turkana in Kenya (where erectus-like people arrived together with stingrays) & Mojokerto in Java (amid barnacles & salt & fresh water shells): they presumably spead over the continental shelves during glacials & from there inland along rivers in Africa & Eurasia. All archaic Homo sites contain a lot of edible shellfish (Stephen Munro 2010 "Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts" PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ.Canberra). It was probably early-Pleistocene that they evolved most of the mouth-throat adaptations for swallowing & sucking soft & slippery foods (rather than biting & chewing savanna foods): small mouth opening, round globular tongue, closed parabolic tooth-row + incisiform canines, smooth palatal vault + only 4 ridges, short mouth + descended hyoid bone (this allows oral closure at different places: labial, dental, palatal, uvular... consonants). The seafood also contained brain-specific nutrients: DHA etc. And diving for seafood necessitated a voluntary control on breahting. Combine this with the early-hominoid song capacities (cf gibbons), and we have all the necessary elements for the beginning of human speech: loud & variable sounds, rhythm & tone, voluntary control, oral closure at different places (consonants) & large brain. Since all these elements were present in neandertals, there's no reason to suppose they hadn't some sort of language (possibly with more elementary syntax, which in H.sapiens is still evolving apparently), see in the attachment my 2d talk at the "Human Evolution" conference on human waterside past (London 8-10 May 2014, with David Attenborough & Don.Johanson, proceedings in 2 special editions of Human Evolution, 2013 & 2014).

The simplest answer to your question is that every population and species evolves  differently, genetically and phenotyically,  from other populations and  species once natural interbreeding ceases. Each of the isolated  populations, if they are humans or apes  have approximately 66,000 nuclear DNA loci  (estimating 22,000 promoters, 22,000 operators, and 22, 000 protein coding)  any of which can base pair mutate into many thousands of permutations.  Thus, first , there is guaranteed to be different mutations occurring in each isolate each generation. Second, the environments in which the populations live, including the members of each population who are genetically and behaviorally unique,   are also going to be different - thus, without gene flow, there is a natural tendency for all populations and later their descendant species,  to go unique ways.

Now, trying to identify more than just a skeleton (pun intended, lol) of a sequence of the   unique events in our lineage over the past 6 million years will be a great challenge. The enormity and depth of this  real sequence will probably never be known sufficiently enough to use the discovered fraction as the basis for causal explanations. You would have to have god-like omnicience to have access to this knowledge  and, we do not yet understand  the machinations of even  a  single human  brain. 

The uniqueness of mankind in the universe appears from the genetic code to greater structures. In the micro scale such as the genetic code, it may stay unchanged through cosmological time (billions of years). And the interactions in the genome rely also through self-organizing behaviors. Thus, evolution take place from simple rules, many interactions, many agents and decentralization; where, the emergence of complex patters are difficult if not, impossible to predict or repeat. Each specie will become unique while evolving with its own characteristic from genotype to phenotype. There was a common ancestor through the path that was required for mankind appearance although the terrestrial genetic code existed before the earth scenario (The article that refers to all this topics appears at the bottom).  

Any sort of life will appear as an emergent property with two primary, dichotomous characteristics:

 -The (PLife) pattern, appears with exact and precise arrangements through the micro macro levels.

 -Such an expected (PLife) pattern, will occur only through sensitive dependence on the initial conditions that will enable the necessary unique characteristics to arise, as exact precision is required. Enough iterations are needed to produce such an uncommon, fine-tuned outcome, out of chaotic events.

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

Every species is unique. Humans are special animals (e.g. Anthropocene), but we're no exception, e.g. human anatomy is explained by our special evolutionary past: we evolved IMO from tree-dwelling (early primates) to living in swamp & mangrove forests (Mio-Pliocene hominoids) to littoral (Pleistocene Homo follwoing African & Eurasian coasts & rivers) to wading-walking (H.sapiens late-Pleistocene): this peculiar evolutionary path IMO best explains e.g. our huge brains (e.g. DHA), very long stretched legs (wading), upright spine (ex-arboreal, wading), flat feet (ex-swimming, wading), dextrous hands (primates, littoral) tool use (e.g.  diet of shellfish), voluntary breathing (shallow diving) etc.

We cannot know exactly the precise path of evolution that mankind followed, although we may know some of the most basic requirements. Mankind is extremely unique, uncommon, alone and irreproducible, given the known or unknown processes that were, are, or will be at work in the universe, as demonstrated by the iterative process of successes through the stochastic dyadic Cantor set with temporal and spatial randomness.

Article Chaos and Unpredictability in Evolution

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

Of course, it's difficult to know how exactly humans (& other species) evolved, Diego. Humans are special, but all species are unique. In fact, there's nothing unexpected in human evolution if we analyse human characters into smaller elements & compare these with the same elements in other animals, please see attachment.

Marc, there are various interesting things that you wrote and may stimulate the discussion. By the way, I read your attachment too.

“Humans are special, but all species are unique”

Since there are no other human races in the universe than those on earth, we do not have a clear parameter to compare and establish an objective result that would exhibit how special we are as humans. If we compare mankind with other animals, by mere inspection we find out that we are different. A hypothesis in favor of the thesis of us, humans, as special beings compare to animals, could be that our cognitive capacity is way beyond than those of the instinctive responses. We can control ourselves or not, it’s our decision, but, this still remains on a personal/subjective decision.

There is no testable method or to consider mankind special as a falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore, we understand that we are taking into account an act that by now, goes beyond the regular nature where a scientific experiment could be design and tested, even repeated. We may assume that we are special. The way I do consider mankind as special it is based on my own way to do it, with my personal beliefs, values, and moral, etc. I Do believe in God and for me, each human being is special; however, I have to be very respectful with the scientific method and the epistemology over any new knowledge. There should be an objective result or experimental method that anyone may test through repeatability and falsifiability. Otherwise, this may induce to erroneous/fallacious/biased conclusions, from the interpretation of any kind of evidence.

Thus, to establish that the human race is special, we should consider an allowance to all personal and subjective such as believing/assuming. Even, a creationist point of view where a supreme being (God) has created us, should be taken on account. If God created us, that makes us special for Him.  This point of view when considering human race as special, also, arises an anthropocentric approach with the same proportional biases when applied to a rigorous scientific context. I do consider each human being as special and unique and valuable, but that’s my personal view.  

As demonstrated in the article at the bottom, life appears as an emergent property of the system rather one imposed in the system by external influences. However, this property also makes the human race unique in the universe where each one of us may consider to believe or not that we are special, or if God created us/or not. There is no external influence, but also the same property that makes us independent from any entity, makes us unique in the universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic scales. 

"In fact, there's nothing unexpected in human evolution if we analyze human characters into smaller elements & compare these with the same elements in other animals “

There should be special care when taking approaches like a-priori or a-posteriori. In other words, approaches after the fact or before the fact.  Once after the fact, there is nothing special and unexpected in human evolution.  But before the fact, there was no possibility to predict with accuracy and veracity what was going to appear as a result. Nonlinear chaotic behaviors were and are at work.

We have to consider first to what scale are we comparing those smaller elements. If we are up to a reductionism ad absurdum, some of the main components in us are: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and of course, there is nothing to compare with other animals through this scale, everything would be as basic as it is in the periodic table of elements. However, if we go to the scale where the genetic code exhibits the differences between a human being and other animals, it is hard to believe that there is nothing unexpected or nothing that differentiate us from other animals.  To support what I have said I attached another paper that exhibits with higher details that the terrestrial genetic code exited even before the earth scenario billions of years ago and it is really different from other animals. 

Article The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

Diego, you say: "If we compare mankind with other animals, by mere inspection we find out that we are different." Of course, we're different, but so are elephants, or naked mole-rats, or star-nosed moles, or...  And as I said, if we analyse human features into smaller units (anatomical features), and compare these with other animals, we're not so different: human locomotion is unique in its combinations (2-legged as in birds or kangaroos + very long legs, not bent as in indris, but stretched as in flamingoes + plantigrady as in many rodents + vertical spine as in gibbons or spider-monkeys + etc.), but each of these elements is not unique. If we combine all these, the most parsimonious evolution is: arboreal (primate) -> aquarboreal (hominoid, google) -> littoral (Homo) -> wading (early sapiens) -> walking (us).

DNA clue to how humans evolved big brains:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38226810

Thanks, Frederick, for this very interesting new information.

However the link says: "Between 2 & 6 mill.yrs ago, the ancestors of modern humans began to walk upright & use simple tools. During this extended period of time, their brain size started to increase."

However: "upright", "tools" & "brains" are 3 different things:

(1) Upright = much older:

- Gibbons are (still?) upright: they climb & brachiate vertically & walk upright over branches. Great apes climb & hang from branches vertically.

- Morotopithcus c 20 Ma & many other Mio-Pliocene hominoids had vertical spines.

- Knuckle-walking Pan & Gorilla probably had more bipedal ancestors, e.g. prenatally they have more humanlike feet: "only as it approaches its birth does its foot acquire the appearance of a hand" (C.Coon). These long & flat feet were not for running as often popularly believed: as in other animals, they were maladaptive for running, but were for wading or swimming in the forest swamps where most hominoid fossils (incl. australopithecine) lay.

(2) Simple tools are made & used by all great apes, hence might already have been present more than 16 Ma (great hominoid last common ancestor). These early "great apes" also had thick enamel: thick enamel + stone tools = durophagy for opening hard-shelled foods such as nuts or shells. Early hominoids crossed the Tethys to Eurasia, and their fossils are often found in coastal forests (e.g. Heliopithecus & Austriacopithecus): cf. capuchin monkeys also have thick enamel & use stones or oyster shells to open mangrove oysters.

(3) Drastic brain increase is not seen in apes or australopiths, but only in Homo (after c 2 Ma in the fossil record) when archaic Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African & Eurasian coasts & rivers. Littoral foods are extremely rich in brain-specific nutrients: DHA, taurine, iodine, micro-elements.

Why we walk on our heels instead of our toes: Longer virtual limbs

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161212134609.htm

'Humanlike' ways of thinking evolved 1.8 million years ago

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508184905.htm

In brain evolution, size matters, most of the time

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170510140736.htm

Hi Frederick. Full plantigrady (heel-walking) is no cursorial adaptation: cursorial mammals are digiti- or unguli-grade. Ostriches & kangaroos have short & weakly developed first & last toes, but very long & strong middle toes, very unlike the flat feet with rel.long first toes of humans, prenatal chimps, australopiths, flamingoes, penguins, grebes & ducks. IOW, human feet evolved from clmibing to swimming & wading to walking feet. Google "unproven assumptions so-called aquatic ape hypothesis".

Thanks for these links, Frederick. Brain size (thinking), language (speech) & Acheulian (tools) are 3 different innovations in archaic Homo (H.erectus, relatives & descendants after about 1.8 Ma) which are only indirectly connected. Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo dispersed, not running over open plains as still often popularly assumed (but physiologically & otherwise impssible), but simply following the African-Eurasian coasts & rivers (e.g. Java-Mojokerto = coast/delta), where they waded bipedally & dived for littoral foods (incl. shellfish, richest in brain-specific nutrients, and to be opened with hard tools). Diving required voluntary breath-hold (preadaptation to speech).

Many thanks for your feedback Marc. This is not my area, but I like to post relevant news stories as I am very interested in it. It's great to hear from those of you more directly involved!

If we consider self-consciousness as differentiating us from other species, then we can look at primate evolution and find a possible answer based on anxiety management.

In a few words:

The evolution from primates to humans has introduced the performance of self-consciousness that came in with a development of identification with conspecifics, containing identifications with suffering or endangered conspecifics.

This may have been the source of a huge anxiety increase, unbearable if not limited. Too much psychological suffering may have led some primates to reject the development of identification, and with it the access to self-consciousness. These primates may have found an ecological niche that led them to our today apes. Other primates (our ancestors) have developed tools to limit that anxiety increase (imitation, cooperation language, ToM, ..). These tools have also accelerated the evolution toward human self-consciousness with anxiety management remaining a key component of human minds.

In attachment a short paper presenting that approach.

Also available at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENESL-3

Christophe

Does self-consciousness set humans apart from all other animals? I don't know, Christophe. Even some birds (e.g. ravens) seem to show self-consciousness. Empathy and imitation are seen in many other animals (incl. apes), and there is no indication that other animals can't be extremely anxious. In my opinion we don't need special pleading (anthropocentric thinking), but have to use what we know from other animals.

Comparative data (in combination with the fossil and paleo-environmental data) suggest that many human pecularities (incl. large brain, language, tool use etc.) can best be understood in the light of the "coastal dispersal model" (S.Munro) of early-Pleistocene Homo, or "littoral theory", see attachment.

Yes Marc, our ape cousins can display capabilities close to ours, crows seem to pass the MSR, some animals know anxiety and are capable of imitation and of empathy. And some may have some limited knowledge of themselves. But the performances that these animals may display remain pretty far from our reflective human self-consciousness. What I propose as having made the difference in evolution is that only some primates (our ancestors) have been capable to go beyond a level of representation. As said, that level corresponds to primates having reached representations of their own entities as existing in the environment, like the conspecifics they identified with were represented as existing. That level of representation brought in an important and brutal psychological pain when the primates became conscious of themselves as feeling the sufferings of the conspecifics they identified with. As proposed, a split may have taken place there: - Too much mental suffering => withdraw from process (and loose acess to human self-consciousness) - Cope with the suffering and develop, at individual & tribe level, performances to manage the sources of the anxiety increase (imitation, cooperation, language, ToM, ...). These developments have limited the suffering, have given evolutionary advantages and have created a positive feedback on identification, feeding an evolutionary engine. Several items, like a pan-homo split, can probably be linked to the proposed scenario (see drawing). Another one (not presented here) is relative to an evolutionary rupture in identification/empathy that may have introduced human based evil (R. Girard scapegoat mechanism leading to sacrifice may be interesting as a candidate). Regarding other animals like birds, I feel they just can’t build up rich enough representations of their own entities allowing what our ancestors went through. Following the proposed scenario, these animals just cannot be self-conscious as we humans are (but the proposed scenario may not be the only one....).

A lot is still to be done on these subjects.... The aquatic ape theory is interesting. The history of humans is a great subject and the “littoral scenario” looks as a thread worth being considered.

Hi all, FYI, an update of my view on ape & hman evolution, please see attachment.