Wibble: They are not confirmed human footprints, I'm afraid CMI don't have that kind of authority. At best, they are possibly hominin. Even I can tell they don't look human, they're far too triangular - more like an ape.
It wasn't a CMI confirmation, I guess you missed the news about it, it was evolutionary scientists that investigated it.
As for the red-highlighted part of your post, it's a very obvious contradiction. You are claiming that apes became more towards the unique bipedal foot of humans, only humans have the unique human foot, so then how can you suggest the tracks look possibly, "hominin" when technically speaking there have only ever been one bipedal hominen known to have human feet, but in the same breath say they don't look, "human"?
Your complaint "triangular" makes it look more like an ape, is silly, apes don't have one large toe at the front and four toes next to it, they have a hand-like foot. Need I show you a picture of an ape's foot? You also need to remember track-ways are very different from finding actual remains of a foot, or a full foot because track-ways have all kinds of differing characteristics, basically you can get many track-ways made by humans which look pretty disparate but they all have the same basic, unique human pattern.
So what or who made the Trachilos prints? They are certainly convincing as real footprints, from the few pictures provided in the paper. The age estimate of 5.7m years also seems correct. The prints do have a narrow heel compared to our general idea of what human footprints look like, as the authors note. But that could easily be matched by the shape of human footprints walking in wet mud, such as in an estuary – which may have been the case.
Not from CMI, from here;
Amusingly they suggest gorillas also have a large toe next to it's other toes but show a photograph showing a huge dissimilarity, such is the blindness evolution has over people in it's deceptive spiritual connotations by which men deceive themselves. They basically see humanity in an ape foot where there is none. Lol!
Wibble: And A. afarensis is the only hominin fossil found anywhere near Laetoli, so seems the most likely candidate for those tracks
No, critical thinking tells us this is ABYSMALLY tenuous in it's circumstantial capacity. Think about it, would you want to be convicted of murder because you were the only one they could confirm were in the park at that time? What an appallingly weak argument-from-ignorance, that because you say the only evidence of animals in stone or buried at that time are found to be pithecine Afarensis or whatever they call the apes, that this means human track ways likely belonged to them.
That's no different from saying that if we found fossils of giraffes in an area but nothing else, but those giraffes had no feet, that cat-prints near by could only belong to giraffes.
I am afraid this only tells me that people educated in the science of these things, that study them and find them and conclude these things, are not prone towards good critical thinking just because they have a phd. They only conclude human tracks belong to apes based on circular reasoning, they only conclude it because, "evolution says humans didn't exist at this time but that apes were evolving into them".
"All atheists are terribly immoral, evil people."
"But look Bob is a fairly decent chap, sure he has sin like all but he hasn't done any evil."
Answer: "Then he can't be atheist because all atheists are immoral, evil people."
"But he says he is atheist."
"A false claim he is making because he can't be because all atheists are evil. We must assume he feels the need to say he is atheist."
Essentially fallacious, because the general rule is constantly invoked against any facts that indicate it false, so the facts themselves are re-worked. (See how it is re-worked so the person can stick to the conclusion. First he says an atheist isn't really one then he says the atheist must be lying about being one. The correct thing to do is actually question the general statement.)
Wibble, is what I am asking too much to ask? That you don't make out human-like tracks definitely belonged to extinct Afarensis apes? It's not so much your suggestions that come across as pretentious or mendacious, it's how you say things, as though it is proven when all of the probability it is human, is actually close to 100% statistically, if we are to ask, "how many human tracks have been made by humans, in the past?" of the ones we can know to be human. 100 out of 100. Only humans have human feet, it is a unique design for our type of bipedalism. Lucy also has a foramen magnum which is close to that of a chimps, assuming you understand how easily this points to duadrupedal anatomy, for if you look at the spine of a dog will it enter the skull at the angle a humans does? Or does it make more sense the spine will enter from the rear of the head in things more quadrupedal than biped? So while there is some evidence towards bipedality, there is some against, and ultimately we can't know because we don't have a live specimen, to see how it walked and how it got about. A lot of people think it was unique in itself the Afarensis line, both apart from apes and human, so you don't half colour the facts as though it is all a simple and solved matter of evolution. As usual the experts and what they say and offer, is disparate from what the layman evolutionist argues, the latter usually arguing a stronger case than exists.