So it's just an enigma for the moment. 1.8 million years after the earliest hominins, some footsteps which are not clear enough to define for sure, only to say that they are probably some kind of ewok with 5 toes from that time. Crete seems like an unlikely place to find hominins, but 1.8 million years is enough time for an ewok to walk around the world thousands of times. Greek islands must have been a strange mountain land, with weird animals. Ooooh.

aksdad, have you read the paper? Evaluted their findings? I would guess not. All you're doing is questioning the motivations of the authors in reporting that they found. You're not-so-subtly accusing the authors of making up their findings, such as the age and characteristics of the footprints.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Slowly the misguided theory of "all life" originating solely in Africa is being hacked to bits.

I like when none scientists try to discredit an article solely because it challenges there view of the world. My concern is with the last phrase. "Weather the human origin research community will accept fossile foot prints as coclusive evidence?" If the evidence is solid how could they refuse? Based on faith? Is that where the human origins group is at now? Deny unless it fits with what we believe we know.

Well PJ, how do you absolutely confirm that these impressions in ancient sands are definitely, without any possible doubt, the remains of Human footprints?

If you have ever walked on the wet sands along a shore? How long did your footprint left behind you remain recognizable?

Cause now you have to explain what event safely protected these footprints for over five million years. And how such an event removed all other evidence such as skeletons and tools. Where is the midden of shellfish left by shore dwellers? Anything else that could be positively dated to that period?

"Fantastic claims require fantastic proof."

Well PJ, how do you absolutely confirm that these impressions in ancient sands are definitely, without any possible doubt, the remains of Human footprints?

If you have ever walked on the wet sands along a shore? How long did your footprint left behind you remain recognizable?

Cause now you have to explain what event safely protected these footprints for over five million years. And how such an event removed all other evidence such as skeletons and tools. Where is the midden of shellfish left by shore dwellers? Anything else that could be positively dated to that period?

"Fantastic claims require fantastic proof."

Well this is how we know jesus is a myth cause he walked on water and those prints only last milliseconds

Well, there was a discussion of multi cellular life being created more than once. I don't see why the human story can have the same: humans developed more than once.

Walking upright may have developed more than once. They're only footprints. We don't know what the creature on top of them was like. May be the exact ancestors we expected, except they're walking upright. OK; that wouldn't be *exact*, but, you get the point. Those transitional fossils from Africa are very scarce, and I don't see this is really much of an odd data point given how much leeway there is there.

Walking upright may have developed more than once. ...

And it may have happened in more than one location...

@rrwillsj, human footprints are pretty distinctive. As Ahlberg says, what makes this controversial is not the character of the prints but their position in Europe, and the timing of the layers above and below them. Dating via foraminifera is distinctly non-controversial. This is going to be a pretty interesting controversy to watch.

DS, it will be difficult to corroborate this claim. It is important to remain skeptical of reckless assumption. Cause it is truly embarrassing when new evidence is produced that nullifies a hypothesis based on preliminary, unverified conclusions.

Wild speculations are the liquidity of the marketplace of ideas.

@rrwillsj, the corroboration is in the footprints. I invite you to show non-hominin footprints with these characteristics. Surely you can find something to substantiate these doubts if they are anything but formless speculation.

DS proof is it you want of my disagreement with the conclusions of this report?

Go walk on a beach, I don't care which one. Come back an hour later. Are your footprints still visible. Did those footprints retain a recognizable shape?

Now come up with a naturally occurring means to protect those footprints for the next few million years.

The footprints found in Africa were protected by the products of volcanic activities. And that protective covering slowly eroded away. Corroboration has been found in human remains, tools, midden piles from the same time span.

What, on a beach, would have a comparable protection for such an ephemeral event? And where is all the rest of it?

Just wanting it to be true, just ain't enough.

Slowly the misguided theory of "all life" originating solely in Africa is being hacked to bits.

Who said "all life" originated in Africa? And what's the point of labeling such a theory "misguided"? All I've ever heard along those lines is the single-region theory of human origins. Sounds like you're jonesing a little too hard for a pro-white supremacist narrative.

DS proof is it you want of my disagreement with the conclusions of this report?

Go walk on a beach, I don't care which one. Come back an hour later. Are your footprints still visible. Did those footprints retain a recognizable shape?

Now come up with a naturally occurring means to protect those footprints for the next few million years.

The footprints found in Africa were protected by the products of volcanic activities. And that protective covering slowly eroded away. Corroboration has been found in human remains, tools, midden piles from the same time span.

What, on a beach, would have a comparable protection for such an ephemeral event? And where is all the rest of it?

Just wanting it to be true, just ain't enough.

Ummmm, yet there they are. Hard to argue against if it's there in solid rock. Solid rock doesn't sound like "wanting it to be true." It sounds like solid evidence. Questioning how it got there is beside the point, because there it is.

@rwillsj, this is brute reality. It doesn't require justification or explanation. What is, is. How it got there is not the point. That it got there is manifest reality. This isn't theory, it's evidence. The same sort of reasoning you're using might lead one to claim there are no stars in the sky.

S, have you've heard the joke "An astrologer hasn't been outside to look up in the night sky in the last four thousand years."

Okay, in solid stone what appear to be humanoid footprints. Miraculously preserved for five million years. Created by some unknown process.

With no other possible explanation or skepticism about these assumptions.

Myself? I always begin with questioning the methodology used to collect evidence. Especially when you discover exactly what you set out to find/prove/claim. Extra-especially when there has not yet been a follow-up for supporting evidence.

Perhaps my assumption of disbelief is wrong? What's the word for anti-miracle?

Similarity to humanoid footprints is not the same thing as an actual humanoid footprint.

Accepting that these are possibly real humanoid footprints. Now the researchers have to discover how that was accomplished. Confirm the age of the imprints and seek more data.

I just remembered Voltaire quoting a young woman he overheard at a dinner party. Who expressed skepticism of Holy Miracles being expounded by a priest seated next to her.

In a sad tone the priest asked. "My daughter, can you deny the miracle of the saint whose head was cut off. Then he picked up his head and wandered across France performing miracles?"

(Paraphrasing her reply) "Oh Father, you misunderstand me. I do not deny the miracles performed by the beheaded saint. However, I do deny his first step!"