Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Science Daily: Fossil overturns more than a century of knowledge about the origin of modern birds

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Fossilised fragments of a skeleton, hidden within a rock the size of a grapefruit, have helped upend one of the longest-standing assumptions about the origins of modern birds.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht found that one of the key skull features that characterises 99% of modern birds — a mobile beak — evolved before the mass extinction event that killed all large dinosaurs, 66 million years ago.

This finding also suggests that the skulls of ostriches, emus and their relatives evolved ‘backwards’, reverting to a more primitive condition after modern birds arose.

Using CT scanning techniques, the Cambridge team identified bones from the palate, or the roof of the mouth, of a new species of large ancient bird, which they named Janavis finalidens. It lived at the very end of the Age of Dinosaurs and was one of the last toothed birds to ever live. The arrangement of its palate bones shows that this ‘dino-bird’ had a mobile, dexterous beak, almost indistinguishable from that of most modern birds.

For more than a century, it had been assumed that the mechanism enabling a mobile beak evolved after the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, the new discovery, reported in the journal Nature, suggests that our understanding of how the modern bird skull came to be needs to be re-evaluated.

Each of the roughly 11,000 species of birds on Earth today is classified into one of two over-arching groups, based on the arrangement of their palate bones. Ostriches, emus and their relatives are classified into the palaeognath, or ‘ancient jaw’ group, meaning that, like humans, their palate bones are fused together into a solid mass.

All other groups of birds are classified into the neognath, or ‘modern jaw’ group, meaning that their palate bones are connected by a mobile joint. This makes their beaks much more dexterous, helpful for nest-building, grooming, food-gathering, and defence.

“This assumption has been taken as a given ever since,” said Dr Daniel Field from Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences, the paper’s senior author. “The main reason this assumption has lasted is that we haven’t had any well-preserved fossil bird palates from the period when modern birds originated.”

Two of the key characteristics we use to differentiate modern birds from their dinosaur ancestors are a toothless beak and a mobile upper jaw. While Janavis finalidens still had teeth, making it a pre-modern bird, its jaw structure is that of the modern, mobile kind.

“Evolution doesn’t happen in a straight line,” said Field. “This fossil shows that the mobile beak — a condition we had always thought post-dated the origin of modern birds, actually evolved before modern birds existed. We’ve been completely backwards in our assumptions of how the modern bird skull evolved for well over a century.”

The researchers say that while this discovery does not mean that the entire bird family tree needs to be redrawn, it does rewrite our understanding of a key evolutionary feature of modern birds.

Full article at Science Daily.

Assumptions seem to have played a large role in the evolutionary story of birds. When assumptions turn out to not match reality, then either the theory is wrong, or extrapolations made from the theory are unjustified.

Comments
Dr. Tour already made a pretty significant contribution already, he posted 10 hours of OoL-lectures.
I take it you are referring to his spat with Dave Farina. I watched the zeroth video and was underwhelmed. All life on Earth survives by exploiting an energy source to maintain itself out of thermodynamic equilibrium with the niche it occupies. When an organism no longer is able to resist being out of thermodynamic equilibrium, it dies. Tour talking of the trend of entropy of the universe being always to increase is correct but does not stop life flourishing for the moment.Alan Fox
December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
And even more from SciTechDaily--just out today!
Ancient DNA, including samples from human remains that are around 45,000 years old, has helped researchers understand a previously unknown aspect of humanity’s evolution. . . . “It was widely believed the genetics of our human ancestors didn’t change due to environmental pressures as much as other animals, due to [i.e. MUSTA been due to] our enhanced communication skills and ability to make and use tools,” Dr. Souilmi said. “However, by comparing modern genomes with ancient DNA, we discovered . . .
Challenging the Prevailing View – 45,000-Year-Old Ancient DNA Reveals Hidden Human History https://scitechdaily.com/challenging-the-prevailing-view-45000-year-old-ancient-dna-reveals-hidden-human-history/ Be still my beating heart! -QQuerius
December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Martin_r, ScienceDaily is absolutely a treasure trove! This one came out yesterday . . .
Scientists have solved a decades-long mystery as to why ancient tetrapods -- amphibian-like creatures that lived over 300 million years ago -- preserved in one of Ireland's most important fossil sites seemingly had their bones cooked after they died.
Ancient amphibians had their bones cooked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221207100413.htm Whew! It MUSTA been lava in the coal seam. Either that or ancient Irish stew tasted a lot different then! Fortunately, evidence shows that the Irish have good "apatite." ;-) -QQuerius
December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Oh, and by the way . . . From the annals of Precision in Paleontology (tm), ScienceDaily reported this gem: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180416155605.htm Perhaps one reason that Darwinists get confused so easily is due to the fact that many organisms are actually very similar in appearance, especially when they evolved at the same time as evidenced by their location in the fossil record. My favorite quote:
"There are many examples of temporarily misplaced taxa in paleontological history, including ferns that were once thought to be sponges and lungfish teeth thought to be fungi," said the lead author, Allison Bronson, a comparative biology Ph.D.-degree student in the Museum's Richard Gilder Graduate School.
Well, that explains it! -QQuerius
December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Martin_r @62, Wow, Thank you for the fascinating link! I didn't know that the University of Bristol and ScienceDaily are SCIENCE DENIERS! Lol Looks like the University of Oxford professor emeritus and Fellow of the Royal Society, Denis Noble, also thinks Darwinism needs to be replaced, not fixed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ad3Qrkyn8 (4:16 minutes) -QQuerius
December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Querius, i am searching for more "other than thought'-stuff (i will start a blog) ... During my search, i found this funny thing, i had to share :)))) it is an older article from 2010, but i like the headline of it: ScienceDaily: Evolution rewritten, again and again
Palaeontologists are forever claiming that their latest fossil discovery will "rewrite evolutionary history." Is this just boasting or does our "knowledge" of evolution radically change every time we find a new fossil?
so funny ... also, from the article
The story of dinosaur evolution is a bit more complicated. New dinosaur fossils are being found in places around the world where they've never been looked for before, such as China, South America and Australia. These fossils are fundamentally challenging existing ideas about dinosaur evolution but this seems to tell us that there are still many new species of dinosaurs out there in the rocks.
this mess is a natural outcome - when you have been wrong for 150 years ... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831190028.htmmartin_r
December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
Martin_r @58, What an excellent list of hysterical headlines that have misled people for decades! Thank you! -QQuerius
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Alan Fox @55, 56,
Ah, but we can test a model. We can compare predictions against measurements.
Of course! But Darwinism despite its repeated failures is coddled and groomed more than any other theory in science. I believe this is due to ideological prejudice. CO2 as a "pollutant" comes in second place. CO2 is plant food. Without enough CO2 in the atmosphere life on earth will die. Experiments show that we're currently at the low end of the range where plants thrive. You're aware of this, right?
I’m unaware of anyone in mainstream science claiming that any particular explanation for the origin of life on Earth is supported by anything more than circumstantial evidence.
It's worse than that. There's simply NO evidence for the OOL outside the fact that there's life here now.
There is no denying life exists on Earth but the precise details of how that came about will remain undecidable without further evidence.
Precise details? No, how about zero details and only speculation! Speculation isn't bad, but needs to be tested by experimental results or observation. It hasn't.
I haven’t noticed James Tour (or the I D movement in general) contributing anything original to the subject.
As Martin_r notes, Dr. Tour has made significant contributions to dismantling the science fantasy hucksterism currently prevalent in OOL research. This frees funds from grants to actual science rather than invested in bogus "ping pong ball" and soap bubble analogies that haven't done anything useful since the Miller-Urey experiment! -QQuerius
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
I have asked this question before , so now I ask it again , if you believe that life arose from non living materials , why do you believe it . Is your belief evidence based , if so present said evidence , if not accept you believe it because of your world view and accept its a blind faith you have , as you cannot produce evidence to support your beliefs.Marfin
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Alan Fox ...
I’m unaware of anyone in mainstream science claiming that any particular explanation for the origin of life on Earth is supported by anything more than circumstantial evidence.
are you playing games again ? A quick google search: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-solve-an-origin-of-life-mystery/ Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum He may have found the key to the origins of life. So why have so few heard of him? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/he-may-have-found-the-key-to-origins-of-life-tibor-ganti-chemoton The Origin of Life Solved https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Origin-of-Life-Solved a book: Emergent Chemical Evolution: The Origin of Life Solved https://www.amazon.com/Emergent-Chemical-Evolution-Origin-Solved/dp/198539846Xmartin_r
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Alan Fox
I haven’t noticed James Tour (or the I D movement in general) contributing anything original to the subject.
could you be more specific what exactly do you mean ? Are you expecting, that Dr. Tour will advocate for how life may have emerged by unguided natural process (AKA spontaneous generation) ? :)))))))) Or what do you expect from Dr. Tour or other ID advocates/creationists ? How should they contribute ? Dr. Tour already made a pretty significant contribution already, he posted 10 hours of OoL-lectures. So anybody who believes in spontaneous generation should watch it. But most people won't understand a single word. It is too technical... Because life is too technical ... because, it is all about engineering. PS: I am not aware of any scientist who gave such a detailed lecture on OoL-issues. Please correct me if i am wrong ...martin_r
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
In terms of the origin of life, as James Tour indicated, we’re simply clueless.
I'm unaware of anyone in mainstream science claiming that any particular explanation for the origin of life on Earth is supported by anything more than circumstantial evidence. There is no denying life exists on Earth but the precise details of how that came about will remain undecidable without further evidence. I haven't noticed James Tour (or the I D movement in general) contributing anything original to the subject.Alan Fox
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
We don’t know whether a “more useful model” is actually more accurate. We only know that it’s more useful.
Ah, but we can test a model. We can compare predictions against measurements.Alan Fox
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Alan Fox, In terms of the origin of life, as James Tour indicated, we're simply clueless. And if first admit we're clueless, we can then consider ALL the evidence without ideological prejudice. Anyone with medical, engineering, computer network, flying, or programming experience knows, if something weird is happening, You don't go chasing speculations, especially in a complex system. Instead, you do the following: 1. Ask whether there have been any known changes. What's different? If the answer is no . . . 2. Then, you drop all assumptions. To assume makes an ass out of u and me. 3. And you take inventory of what you do know (or think you know). 4. Then you test/challenge each item. Devise a set of experiments to verify each step or item. Look for unexpected behaviors or symptoms. Sometimes more than one thing is involved. Sometimes, it requires a paradigm shift. Unfortunately, Darwinism is stuck in speculation. A more fundamental reassessment is required to become unstuck. Here's what the British Royal Society did in 2016: https://evo2.org/royal-society-evolution/ -QQuerius
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @50,
Nothing to stop ID proponents from proposing models that fit the data better.
Yep. By approaching poorly understood biological features and structures with the perspective that they have been intelligently designed, it accelerates new discoveries and enhances scientific progress. The ID approach is much better than simply assuming poorly understood features as “junk” or useless vestiges of evolution.
Why does that never happen?
Basically, because you’ve chosen to remain ignorant. For example, have you ever read Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall? It’s one click away: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1944648755/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1670363868&sr=8-5 -QQuerius
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @49,
All models are wrong but some are useful.
Yes, I love that quote from statistician George Box.
The scientific approach is to be less wrong with more accurate and thus more useful models.
We don't know whether a "more useful model" is actually more accurate. We only know that it's more useful. - A better theory tends to collapse complexity and is able to successfully predict the results of experiments and future discoveries. - A poor theory is confronted with frequent surprises, needs constant revision, and tends to ever greater complexity as a result. -QQuerius
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Martin_r @46,
In his videos, ‘professor’ Dave complained, that Dr. Tour just can’t understand the OoL issues, because he is ONLY a synthetic chemist (and that he also has to be a biologist, and all other sorts of ‘-logist’)
I also noticed typical trollbot statements such as Dr. Tour being a “known liar.” But I guess “professor” Dave feels that anything he says is justified by his knowing deep down that he’s right, and this justifies all his hateful comments against Dr. Tour such as: “In conclusion, James is an embarrassment to the scientific community who never seems to learn his lesson.”
The funny thing is, that those 3 experts ‘professor’ Dave invited to help him out (to debunk Dr. Tour), are ALSO synthetic chemists :)))))) all 3 of them :))))))))))))))
You would think that “professor” Dave would have noticed the irony. But no, he feels safe as an apologist for the orthodox ideological narrative. I would note that blindly following scientific orthodoxy, results in stagnation, leading to absurd statements such as “The science is settled (tm). I also noticed that Lee Cronin admits he has no background in organic chemistry. WHAT??? He’s a PhD inorganic chemist studying the origin of life without knowledge of the actual (organic) chemistry of life? No wonder he seems desperate to defend is position without going into any actual organic chemistry! -QQuerius
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
The same should be true for Darwinism, except that Darwinists have too much ideological commitment to be able to follow the data.
Nothing to stop ID proponents from proposing models that fit the data better. Why does that never happen?Alan Fox
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Finally, the model was abandoned for a heliocentric one, which reduced the exceptions, complexities, and surprises.
All models are wrong but some are useful. The scientific approach is to be less wrong with more accurate and thus more useful models.Alan Fox
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Martin_r @45,
This theory is getting more and more absurd with every new discovery …
Exactly. And that has the earmarks of a failed theory. Here's an example from history. It was once believed that the heavens traveled around the earth with spherical motion. For one thing, the ancient Greeks observed that there are a lot of things on earth that are linear, but celestial objects were circular or spherical. The things on earth were imperfect but the things in the heavens were perfect. This was the science of the day. And Aristotle was a genius. When wandering stars were noticed, they were put on spheres as well, and the cosmos worked out well! Eclipses were accurately predicted and calendars were reliable. The size and shape of the earth were calculated as was its tilt and distance to the sun by Eratosthenes about 250 BCE! Circumference of the earth: 250,000 stadia = 24,950 miles or 40,419 km. Current equatorial circumference: 24,901 miles or 40,075 km. This was a good model. However, with further studies, there were surprises that had to be accommodated in the model. As a result, the model became more and more complex. Finally, the model was abandoned for a heliocentric one, which reduced the exceptions, complexities, and surprises. The same should be true for Darwinism, except that Darwinists have too much ideological commitment to be able to follow the data. So, we now have the evolution of missing features as well as "living fossils," and many other miracles. -QQuerius
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Seversky
about shining light on a clump of atoms is not equivalent to it.
are you seriously saying, that shining light on a clump of atoms in order to create a plant out of it, is not spontaneous generation of life ? Then what is it ?martin_r
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Querius @41 I am still watching the newest Dr. Tour's lecture on 'professor' Dave's OoL-experts. The following part is very amuzing: In his videos, 'professor' Dave complained, that Dr. Tour just can't understand the OoL issues, because he is ONLY a synthetic chemist (and that he also has to be a biologist, and all other sorts of '-logist') The funny thing is, that those 3 experts 'professor' Dave invited to help him out (to debunk Dr. Tour), are ALSO synthetic chemists :)))))) all 3 of them :)))))))))))))) This 'professor' Dave is such a clown ....martin_r
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Querius, i am glad that my English is good enough to understand that various human ancestors started to walk on two legs independently of each other at about the same time ... I thought i have misunderstood something ... This theory is getting more and more absurd with every new discovery ... PS: as to "missing features also evolve! Imagine that!" yeah... Get this: Key evolutionary innovation lost 1000 times!
Despite the advantages associated with flight, such as the ability to disperse widely and forage, flight has been independently lost within nearly every pterygote order and an estimated thousands of times overall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735250/
martin_r
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
Seversky
So, if science does revise its narrative in the light of new evidence it’s untrustworthy and always wrong, if it doesn’t it’s inflexible and dogmatic. So tell us, from an engineering perspective, what’s it supposed to do?
it is easy: first of all, do not call it science. It is not. Second, do not mislead lay people that the theory of evolution is a fact, because it is not ... new findings challenging the basics of the theory EVERT SINGLE DAY ... this is not a science... it is a fiasco ... Third, start accepting ID scientists - because they were always right and you guys are always wrong ... Talking about basics of the theory: Look here, January 2022
Why mutation is not as random as we thought Challenging the dogma of gene evolution A long-standing doctrine in evolution is that mutations can arise anywhere in a genome with equal probability. However, new research is challenging this idea of randomness, showing that mutations in the genome of the plant Arabidosis thaliana appear to happen less frequently in important regions of the genome. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00142-2
martin_r
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
Sev- if you convince a generation that evolution and common ancestry is a fact based on a given fossil or number of fossils , and then after fifty years it turns out those fossils were never part of our ancestry or lineage to begin with , but these newly discovered ones most definitely are , well that`s until those too are proven not to be. You see there is no way to use empirical science to test any fossil to see if its ancestral to any other fossil, sure you can lay them out it what you believe is a line of ancestry but how do you test that line. Then in a few years new so called evidence will destroy what you were once so certain of , maybe it should be admitted that these things were never so certain to begin with.Marfin
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Martin_r/31
sure…it is a revision after a revision after a revision … every single day a new revision … Like i said, these people are not to be trusted … they are always wrong …
So, if science does revise its narrative in the light of new evidence it's untrustworthy and always wrong, if it doesn't it's inflexible and dogmatic. So tell us, from an engineering perspective, what's it supposed to do?
PS: Seversky, no reply on my updated spontaneous-generation post ?
No, "Darwinists" don't believe in the 19th century version of spontaneous generation and, no, speculations about shining light on a clump of atoms is not equivalent to it.Seversky
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Similarly, we're told that life on earth MUSTA evolved from simple non-living chemicals. We're told there's mountains of evidence for the sudden emergence of life, hence it MUSTA been simple. And then chance operates on bubbles in the primordial soup, some of which MUSTA combined to cooperate in creating increasingly complex systems that MUSTA evolved from coacervates to koala bears. So, Jim Tour accepts the fantasy chemistry challenge! Just posted . . . Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwPi1miWu4 -QQuerius
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Martin_r @36,
We now know that various hominin species living in different environments throughout Africa, sometimes contemporaneously, evolved different ways to walk on two legs.
English is not my first language, but did i get this right? Are Darwinists really suggesting, that at the same moment, various human ancestors, decided to walk on two legs independently from each other?
Yes, you read correctly, although I think the Sci-Am claims are hard to decode. My legs also seem to walk independently of each other. What I think they mean is that humans and some human ancestors evolved to become bipedal while the other great apes evolved to become quadrupedal. 1. The putative common hominid ancestor was capable of locomotion, likely quadrupedal. 2. The other great apes are primarily quadrupedal, but humans are bipedal. While great apes can walk on two legs for short distances, they don’t normally do this. On the other hand, they can grasp and eat an apple using a foot, while I’ve not been able to do so. Maybe one of the Darwinists here can explain the trick. (wink) 3. However, there’s Lucy, an extinct Australopitecus afarensis that was supposedly bipedal. It should be noted that the bone fragments used to assemble its skeleton were scattered over a wide area (roughly 2-1/2 kilometers), came from different strata (about 70 meters), and did not include its feet or knee. Its wrist bones indicate quadrupedal “knuckle walking.” 4. The bipedal controversy might have been addressed by subtle differences in its hips and femur, and in a fourth metatarsal bone discovered later. https://www.academia.edu/73355024/Complete_fourth_metatarsal_and_arches_in_the_foot_of_Australopithecus_afarensis Evidence for Lucy’s bipedal locomotion is also presented from the remarkably human-like Laetoli footprints. However, these footprints were discovered in Tanzania, roughly 1600 kilometers away. Maybe Lucy swung through the trees or rode a motorcycle to get to Ethiopia. -QQuerius
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
TJguy @35,
So science is NOT the arbiter of truth.
Exactly. Science creates models based on data, some of which are useful, all of which are eventually either modified or discarded. Except for Darwinism, of course. Unique to science, Darwinism is supposedly a FACT now.
How dependable is our current “knowledge”? The reality is that no one really knows.
One can gauge the strength of a hypothesis or theory based on how well it predicts future findings. As Martin_r pointed out, as a result of monthly and even daily surprises, Darwinism continually demonstrates that it’s an extremely poor theory!
When you can’t run experiments to check your hypothesis, you are dependent on your interpretation of what you think you currently know.
Even with highly precise experimental data such as in quantum mechanics, the interpretations are wildly controversial, mostly due to ideological prejudices!
Most interpretation is done through the evolutionary paradigm which itself is an interpretation of the data and still problematic.
Exactly! And this paradigm has repeatedly been shown to lead to false conclusions, again as was amply demonstrated by the “shocking surprises” that Martin_r mentioned above. Some evidence and controversies are suppressed or groomed. A good example is the Leakey stranglehold on research in the Olduvai Gorge and the dating controversy. Apparently, one can't just go there with a research team and start digging around! -QQuerius
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Seversky at 30, The theory of unguided evolution has no supporting evidence. There is a growing body of evidence that shows Intelligent Design in living things. Things did not start with chaos and then order themselves. The evidence points to order coming from order.relatd
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply