Your question "Why am I here?" could be taken to mean any number of things, but you appear to clarify (slightly, and rather confusingly) in the first and second paragraphs when you say:
- "...helping us understand how we got here."
- "...why I am here, rather than somewhere else?"
The first could be taken as a biological question or a religious one. The second might refer to counterfactual scenarios, to a question regarding the extent of human agency, or perhaps to an inquiry into the question of why a person makes one set of decisions rather than another (if the latter is true, then it's likely a psychological question).
The danger I see is attempting to answer a biological, psychological, or religious question in a manner that is uniquely philosophical. Of course, that's not always an easy boundary to discern, but it often amounts to a person conducting some ill-formed study of life (for example) from the armchair. I don't think anyone will get very far if he intends to gather knowledge of mitochondrial DNA or the history of the cosmos by means of pure speculation.
I assume that many immersed in the philosophical tradition would classify topics such as counterfactuals and human agency (especially if the latter amounts to a question of freedom of will) as being properly philosophical. David Lewis and Saul Kripke (contemporary professors of philosophy) wrote quite a bit about counterfactuals, and countless philosophers had something to say about the determinism debate (Hume in the 18th Century, and Mark Balaguer this century). Additionally, if your question is related not just to agency in terms of outward action but also to freedom of belief (doxastic voluntarism), many others have commented on the topic: Dion Scott-Kakures, William Alston, and Robert Audi come to mind.
Final note: Philosophy does not ask questions, people do. However, I understood what you meant.