Archaeologists in Ethiopia discover 12 fossils around 4 million years old

by hawkaw 38 Replies latest jw friends

OldSoul

Hawkaw,
I also urge him to carefully review some of the links I have posted. Here let me take a quote from one of those posted links that I provided above that shows the elegant proof that the earth is old!
Okay. The earth is old. Very old. Billions of years old. Magma resets the counter on many of the half-lives, so surrounding matter may be much older than it immediately appears if it arrived at a later time as a result of volcanic activity. Other cataclysmic activity, such as earthquakes, can transfer bones in an intact state to environs in which they did not originally occur giving a false impression of age.
Additionally, without knowing what processes were used to date these specimen one would be declaring an article of faith in science and - in particular - the scientists who dated the specimen. So until I have unearthed (pun intended) these details I will reserve judgement of the actual age.
I am not confident in the age assumptions made by Bible scholars, but I am likewise not confident that decay today is as decay has always been. The amount of time study of the phenomenon has been possible for man is too short for establishing definitive half-lives because the properties of the various stages of breakdown may be (and likely are) imperfectly understood, at best. We now know that a variety of circumstances can affect the speed of breakdown of many isotopes. When we add to this that we have no way of stating absolutely that the behaviors we observe in matter today have always been operated exactly the same way, I find I have little confidence in dating very old specimen beyond, "Dang! That's an old one!"
Respectfully,
OldSoul
AlanF

OldSoul said:
: Magma resets the counter on many of the half-lives,
No such thing happens. The half-lives of radioisotopes are unaffected by anything outside of the conditions found in the cores of stars about to go supernova.
What melting usually does to minerals that contain radioactive isotopes is to allow the gases that are the end products of radioactive decay to escape. It is this escape that "zeroes" the radioactive clock, since the clock is read by comparing the ratio of the decay products to the original isotope.
: so surrounding matter may be much older than it immediately appears if it arrived at a later time as a result of volcanic activity.
Not at all, in view of my above clarifications.
: Other cataclysmic activity, such as earthquakes, can transfer bones in an intact state to environs in which they did not originally occur giving a false impression of age.
If something like that happens, the disturbance will be enough that it's quite evident, and competent geologists will account for it. But I suspect that you don't know of any examples of this happening.
: Additionally, without knowing what processes were used to date these specimen one would be declaring an article of faith in science and - in particular - the scientists who dated the specimen.
That's not much of a problem, really. We function about 99% on such trust in our daily existence. We trust that when NASA scientists say they launch space probes, they're really doing that. We also don't call that faith -- we call it common sense. Faith is usually reserved for religion.
: So until I have unearthed (pun intended) these details I will reserve judgement of the actual age.
You can do that, but to be consistent, you'd have to reserve judgment about the supposed scientific results of all those space probes, no?
: I am not confident in the age assumptions made by Bible scholars,
With good reason.
: but I am likewise not confident that decay today is as decay has always been.
Why? Have you been reading silly young-earth creationist literature?
: The amount of time study of the phenomenon has been possible for man is too short for establishing definitive half-lives because the properties of the various stages of breakdown may be (and likely are) imperfectly understood, at best.
Not really. Radioactive decay is a statistical process that is measurable to a high degree of accuracy. You don't need to measure it for a long time to get a good idea of the half-life of a particular isotope. The only fundamental assumption made, in order to date rocks via radioactive decay with confidence, is that the laws of physics have not changed over time. That's a pretty good assumption, so far as we know, since there's absolutely no evidence that it's bad. Of course, it's quite possible for contamination of the sample to occur, but good geologists take many precautions so as not to be fooled by such problems.
: We now know that a variety of circumstances can affect the speed of breakdown of many isotopes.
Oh? That's news to me, and I suspect, to geologists.
: When we add to this that we have no way of stating absolutely that the behaviors we observe in matter today have always been operated exactly the same way, I find I have little confidence in dating very old specimen beyond, "Dang! That's an old one!"
You can say that sort of thing about anything you can't observe directly right now. By the same token, we have no way of stating absolutely that you existed before 9:00 am this morning. Perhaps God created the entire universe at 9:00 am, complete with intelligent critters with memories of things that never happened.
I think you can see how silly this kind of argument is.
AlanF
hillary_step

God Alan, you stole the words right from my lips again!
HS
OldSoul

AlanF
Why? Have you been reading silly young-earth creationist literature?
No.
The only fundamental assumption made, in order to date rocks via radioactive decay with confidence, is that the laws of physics have not changed over time. That's a pretty good assumption, so far as we know, since there's absolutely no evidence that it's bad. Of course, it's quite possible for contamination of the sample to occur, but good geologists take many precautions so as not to be fooled by such problems.
While the laws governing physics have never been observed to change, our conceptualization of those laws has changed dramatically many times. Do you believe Newtonian laws should be strictly held to apply in all cases? Why, if the laws of physics are unchanging?
At one time those laws were among "the laws of physics" that were immutable. Now we know of a "few" exceptions to them. Shall we adhere to a mechanical view of the universe just because that was the best explanation we had at one time, or should we be maleable enough to adjust to changes in our concept of reality?
My point is that from the perspective of any fixed time in our history - up to and including an hour ago - we humans imperfectly understand the physical laws governing the here and now. Since that is observably the case, it is, in my opinion, common sense to presuppose that our concept of the physical world millions - even hundreds of thousands - of years ago may be somewhat askew. If that is an unreasonable statement in your view, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I personally resist readiness to accept anyone's claims without challenge. When I look back through the history of humanity I find ample cause for that reluctance. I stated a view that respectfully differed from hawkaw's, but I did not insinuate that his thinking was representative of weak-mindedness. I find it particularly odd that I would be asked whether I question the science based on Young Earth theory. If you read my previous post carefully you will find why that question stymied me.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
AlanF

OldSoul said:
::: but I am likewise not confident that decay today is as decay has always been.
:: Why? Have you been reading silly young-earth creationist literature?
: No.
Why then? Certainly not from observation, since there are no observations I'm aware of in the scientific literature that would support your lack of confidence. And I doubt that you've made any observations on your own.
:: The only fundamental assumption made, in order to date rocks via radioactive decay with confidence, is that the laws of physics have not changed over time. That's a pretty good assumption, so far as we know, since there's absolutely no evidence that it's bad. Of course, it's quite possible for contamination of the sample to occur, but good geologists take many precautions so as not to be fooled by such problems.
: While the laws governing physics have never been observed to change, our conceptualization of those laws has changed dramatically many times.
You're mixing up simple observations, like the decay rate of isotopes, with theories to explain those observations.
Decay rates are simple observations. You take a sample, measure the number of decay events occurring in a given time interval with a geiger counter or similar device, calculate the number of decayable atoms in the sample, and calculate the ratio of decay events to number of atoms. With a little algebra, that yields a half-life, or a decay rate. There are no "laws" or unusual conceptualizations involved in this simple counting procedure, any more than there are in, say, counting the number of butterfflies that visit a field. The only assumptions made to use this procedure to date rocks, is that the decay rate remains constant over time, and that the observed amount of apparent daughter products of the decay process are due to that process and not due to contamination.
This has nothing to do with a "conceptualization" of the laws of physics, since such conceptualizations do things like try to explain why a given isotope decays at a specific rate, or why it decays into particular daughter products.
: Do you believe Newtonian laws should be strictly held to apply in all cases? Why, if the laws of physics are unchanging?
When I speak of "the laws of physics", I'm not speaking about some sort of divine behests that material objects must obey. I'm talking about generalizations of the way scientists observe things to behave. That's what I'm talking about with respect to decay rates of isotopes.
So, you're comparing apples and oranges. To an extremely high degree of accuracy, Newton's "law of gravity" allows astrophysicists to calculate the orbits of planets, etc. Newton arrived at that "law" by a combination of observation, keen insight, and excellent mathematical ability. He arrived at a simple formula that says that objects gravitationally attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. He confirmed this "law" with respect to planetary orbits to an accuracy limited only by his instrumentation. So it should be obvious that this "law" is nothing more than a formula that describes how gravity behaves, to a good, but not perfect, degree of accuracy. It says nothing at all about how or why gravity works. These things are the stuff of the conceptualizations of physicists today.
Einstein's generalization of Newton's "law" allows much better accuracy, and so it's used to calculate the orbits of space probes. Einstein took into account a number of observations that showed that Newton's law was not sufficiently accurate under certain circumstances, and so he formulated a new law of gravity, using a completely new set of assumptions, that took account of all known observations. This was again confirmed within measurement limitations, but a number of modern measurements seem to indicate that further modifications are in order.
What this means is that both Newton's and Einstein's "laws" are nothing more than mathematical statements of the way that things are observed to behave. Thus, such so-called "laws" are not really laws, but generalizations of the way we actually observe things to behave. So, when I say that scientists assume that "the laws of physics" don't change over time, it simply means that they assume that physical objects behaved 15 billion years ago as they do today.
Given all this, I don't think you really understand the fundamentals of science.
: At one time those laws were among "the laws of physics" that were immutable.
This is a good example of why I think you don't understand the character of physical "law". If you did, you wouldn't say this.
: Now we know of a "few" exceptions to them.
No, we don't, in view of my above discussion. What we do know is that, as instrumention and general understanding improves, the math that describes how things behave gets better, and based on that math we can make better predictions of how things will behave in situations that have not yet been observed, and we can progress towards an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the universe.
: Shall we adhere to a mechanical view of the universe just because that was the best explanation we had at one time, or should we be maleable enough to adjust to changes in our concept of reality?
The latter is precisely what good science does.
: My point is that from the perspective of any fixed time in our history - up to and including an hour ago - we humans imperfectly understand the physical laws governing the here and now.
That's not exactly news.
: Since that is observably the case, it is, in my opinion, common sense to presuppose that our concept of the physical world millions - even hundreds of thousands - of years ago may be somewhat askew.
You've completely and illogically switched gears. I said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years. You're now talking about how the conceptions of scientists, as embodied in the latest statements of physical "law", change. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
: If that is an unreasonable statement in your view, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Only if you continue to make completely illogical statements.
: I personally resist readiness to accept anyone's claims without challenge.
Fine. But then you ought to have some kind of empirical evidence at hand, about specific things, to back up your mere gut feel about general things. What evidence do you have, for example, that isotope decay rates may change over time? If you have none, then your gut feel is without foundation.
: When I look back through the history of humanity I find ample cause for that reluctance.
What does that have to do with specifics like evidence that decay rates may change? You might as well propose that inertia or gravity changes.
: I stated a view that respectfully differed from hawkaw's, but I did not insinuate that his thinking was representative of weak-mindedness.
Agreed, but what's your point?
: I find it particularly odd that I would be asked whether I question the science based on Young Earth theory. If you read my previous post carefully you will find why that question stymied me.
Yes, you said the earth is old. But you also suggested that you think radioisotope decay rates change. Young-earth creationists are the only anti-evolutionists who make that claim, so far as I know. It's one of their foundation arguments against the validity of radioactive dating. Furthermore, most of your comments are very much like those of YECs rather than other sorts of creationists. If it walks like a duck, etc., no?
AlanF
hawkaw

In adding to what Alan F. just said to OldSoul, this is what I said previously wrt to laws and theories in science: The terms "hypothesis", "model", "theory" and "law" have different meanings in science than in colloquial speech. Scientists use the term model to mean a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions which can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has not (yet) been either well supported nor ruled out by experiment. A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.
Most non-scientists are unaware that what scientists call "theories" are what most people call "facts". The general public uses the word theory to refer to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer only to ideas that have repeatedly withstood testing. Thus, when scientists refer to the theories of biological evolution, electromagnetism, and relativity, they are referring to ideas that have survived considerable experimental testing. But there are exceptions, such as string theory, which seems to be a promising model but as yet has no empirical evidence to give it precedence over competing models.
Especially fruitful theories that have withstood the test of time are considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense ? that it is true and factual but of course can still be falsified. This includes many theories, such as universally accepted ones such as heliocentric theory and controversial ones such as evolution, which are backed by many observations and experimental data. Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones.
Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law falsified by experiments regarding motions at high speeds and in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside of those conditions, Newton's Laws remain excellent accounts of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, general relativity is currently regarded as our best account of gravitation.
The above was taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method "OldSoul", I would urge you to remember the above-noted information on laws and theories in science and not try to get yourself twisted around. You have to buy a ticket before you can come into the party. You might want to learn the above-noted terms that I have provided (and have been correctly noted by Alan) and you might want to figure out how science works before moving forward in your conversation. With respect to decay rates, Alan is quite correct. The only thing I would add is that when we use the technique to date, we use particular isotopes for the partcular environment, we will also use more than one isotope to ensure we can confirm/verify our original measurement and we will ensure the environment is not contaminated (much like Alan has alluded too). We also determine the degree of accuracy in our measurements by providing an error reading - much like how one would have a degree of accuracy of plus or minus 1/32 of an inch on a typical American tape measure. It is a very particular science and accurate - we have been measuring decay rates of uranium for more than a hundred years now - results are as predicted. Here a very good read on dating with even a Christian slant on the subject: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html I again urge you, OldSoul, to not close your mind but actually read the above-noted article amd learn the technique of radionuclide dating. hawk
OldSoul

: Since that is observably the case, it is, in my opinion, common sense to presuppose that our concept of the physical world millions - even hundreds of thousands - of years ago may be somewhat askew.
You've completely and illogically switched gears. I said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years. You're now talking about how the conceptions of scientists, as embodied in the latest statements of physical "law", change. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

I would like to start by saying that I have admired many of your posts since I started reading here. These posts in our discussion here are no exception.
While I did not go to great lengths to explain myself in detail, assuming that many of the things you have since mentioned were well understood by you, I continue to find it amusing how quickly you have niched "my view" of things. You said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years (as I recall, not in those words, exactly) but our description of those actual behaviors has changed significantly many times. While reality does not change, our concept of what reality is does change.
I am not talking about a distinction between observation and explanation of observation, I am talking about our innately limited ability to correctly assess what we are observing. I did not say that decay rates do change, I said I am personally not confident that we can say we understand enough about isotopes themselves to state with certainty that their currently observed nature is as it always has been.
What evidence do you have, for example, that isotope decay rates may change over time?
Should the question be inverted ... but that is a digression. I am not even hung up on decay rates, per se. I am saying that our abilities to observe phenomenon and arrive at immutable conclusions about the consistency of observed behavior have been proven wanting time and again and that conceptualization rather than observation is usually the key to recognizing the inconsistencies in the "consistent" behavior of physical things.
So that you will know, I believe that space is much more like the Riemann-Kaluza model. I believe that all matter originated from a fixed point, billions of years ago. I believe that our concept of space must first expand to accept more than three dimensions of space and one of time before all matter can be tracked back to arrive simultaneously at a specific point at the same "time." I believe the concept of more dimensions of space and/or time means we must allow for the possibility that actual physical behaviors evidenced in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint can be influenced by actual physical behaviors of things that do not exist in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint?and even of things that exist both inside and outside.
If that is Young Earther talk, it's news to me. Since we are barely scratching the surface of potential impacts exerted on our "observable" dimensional viewpoint from these "conceptual" perspectives of a greater reality that cannot be directly observed, I personally choose to withold judgement when it comes to our accuracy in interpretting the observable behavior of matter as the actual behavior. Thus my statement that I am "not confident" of our current abilities as a species.
As to my being anti-evolutionist, I wasn't aware I held that viewpoint. Please clear up for me what gave you that idea. I would say I am neither evolutionist nor Creationist, strictly speaking. I can say I am definitely NOT a fundamentalist. Not that I am trying to impress, mind you. I have not pretended anywhere on this forum to be anything other than I am, a man. There is nothing terribly impressive about being a specimen of the human race.
Are my opinions not welcome on this topic? If so, I will take my leave.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
AlanF

OldSoul said:
: I would like to start by saying that I have admired many of your posts since I started reading here. These posts in our discussion here are no exception.
Thanks for that, but I don't have enough experience reading your posts to say anything general about them.
: While I did not go to great lengths to explain myself in detail, assuming that many of the things you have since mentioned were well understood by you,
I think that's correct.
: I continue to find it amusing how quickly you have niched "my view" of things.
Niched? I asked you two simple questions: "Why?" and "Have you been reading silly young-earth creationist literature?"
: You said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years (as I recall, not in those words, exactly)
Let me quote what I said for you, that's relevant to this statement:
Radioactive decay is a statistical process that is measurable to a high degree of accuracy. You don't need to measure it for a long time to get a good idea of the half-life of a particular isotope. The only fundamental assumption made, in order to date rocks via radioactive decay with confidence, is that the laws of physics have not changed over time. That's a pretty good assumption, so far as we know, since there's absolutely no evidence that it's bad.
And:
when I say that scientists assume that "the laws of physics" don't change over time, it simply means that they assume that physical objects behaved 15 billion years ago as they do today. . .
I said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years.
: but our description of those actual behaviors has changed significantly many times.
Not with regards to the behavior of radioisotope decay -- which is the topic of this discussion. From the time accurate measurements were first made, in the 1940s, of half lives for the purpose of dating old things, the assumption has been that decay rates don't change.
Now, if you know of some examples where "our description of those actual behaviors has changed significantly many times" with regards to radioisotope decay rates, I'm all ears. But if you have no examples, then you have no data and no basis on which to form a proper opinion. Unless, of course, you think that proper opinions can be formed without any foundational data.
: While reality does not change, our concept of what reality is does change.
True. But so far as the data you've provided, irrelevant to this discussion.
: I am not talking about a distinction between observation and explanation of observation, I am talking about our innately limited ability to correctly assess what we are observing. I did not say that decay rates do change, I said I am personally not confident that we can say we understand enough about isotopes themselves to state with certainty that their currently observed nature is as it always has been.
That's about as fuzzy a statement as I've ever seen. So far as I can see, it boils down to your emotionally based discomfort with long ages for the universe, since you don't seem to be able to provide any data to give a foundation in reality for your discomfort.
Besides, as I explained, a correct assessment of observations of radioisotope decay rates isn't exactly rocket science. As I said, you take a geiger counter, measure the rate of counts, do some algebra. Then you make the assumptions that I listed above.
You seem to think that making ill-formed, generalized statements about the "observed nature" of isotopes actually says something significant about their decay rates. It does not. If you have something specific to say, then out with it!
:: What evidence do you have, for example, that isotope decay rates may change over time?
: Should the question be inverted ...
No, for reasons I've already given. Furthermore, anyone who has a real understanding of science would never ask such a question. Hence, my wondering about your actual level of understanding. The reason for this is that people who understand physics know that even a tiny change in what we call "the laws of physics" would make the functioning of the universe impossible. In particular, even slight changes in the "laws" that govern the decay rates of atomic nuclei would either turn hydrogen fusion into a runaway process, or shut it down altogether, with rather obvious consequences. Therefore, the burden of proof that such "laws" are not unchanging is on the person who makes the claim.
: but that is a digression. I am not even hung up on decay rates, per se. I am saying that our abilities to observe phenomenon and arrive at immutable conclusions about the consistency of observed behavior have been proven wanting time and again
Again, you must give examples of this with respect to radioactive decay, or you're just blowing smoke.
: and that conceptualization rather than observation is usually the key to recognizing the inconsistencies in the "consistent" behavior of physical things.
What ever that means.
: So that you will know,
I'm glad you're not making me guess.
: I believe that space is much more like the Riemann-Kaluza model. I believe that all matter originated from a fixed point, billions of years ago.
Sounds like the Big Bang.
: I believe that our concept of space must first expand to accept more than three dimensions of space and one of time before all matter can be tracked back to arrive simultaneously at a specific point at the same "time."
Sounds like certain modern physics theories that posit 7, 11 or even more spacial dimensions.
: I believe the concept of more dimensions of space and/or time means we must allow for the possibility that actual physical behaviors evidenced in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint can be influenced by actual physical behaviors of things that do not exist in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint?and even of things that exist both inside and outside.
Ok. Apparently you've been reading some recent popular accounts of modern physics.
: If that is Young Earther talk, it's news to me.
No, what's "Young Earther talk" is postulating, without any data at all, that radioisotope decay rates have changed since the beginning of the universe.
: Since we are barely scratching the surface of potential impacts exerted on our "observable" dimensional viewpoint from these "conceptual" perspectives of a greater reality that cannot be directly observed, I personally choose to withold judgement when it comes to our accuracy in interpretting the observable behavior of matter as the actual behavior. Thus my statement that I am "not confident" of our current abilities as a species.
I see. Sort of.
: As to my being anti-evolutionist, I wasn't aware I held that viewpoint.
Nor was I.
: Please clear up for me what gave you that idea.
I don't have that idea. Whatever makes you think I have?
: I would say I am neither evolutionist nor Creationist, strictly speaking. I can say I am definitely NOT a fundamentalist. Not that I am trying to impress, mind you.
A good thing, I think. I'm not sure you know what you believe.
: I have not pretended anywhere on this forum to be anything other than I am, a man. There is nothing terribly impressive about being a specimen of the human race.
I will agree with that. Not that it's a spectacularly novel observation.
: Are my opinions not welcome on this topic? If so, I will take my leave.
Of course they are. But they're also subject to criticism by any and all comers. That's what a discussion forum is for.
AlanF
OldSoul

AlanF,
: As to my being anti-evolutionist, I wasn't aware I held that viewpoint.

AlanF: Nor was I.
Yes, you said the earth is old. But you also suggested that you think radioisotope decay rates change. Young-earth creationists are the only anti-evolutionists who make that claim, so far as I know. It's one of their foundation arguments against the validity of radioactive dating.
Since you wondered whether I was a Young Earther, or had been reading their publications, it seemed from this statement you thought I might be an anti-evolutionist. That is not the case.
AlanF: I'm not sure you know what you believe.
I agree with you here. I am definitely not sure I know what I believe, which is really the point of my first post on this topic. I really have only developed one strict belief, as far as I am aware: Since all of our beliefs are based on an admittedly misunderstood concept of reality?physical universe inclusive?if anyone is sure they know what they believe those beliefs are inherently highly suspect and conclusions drawn from them, while serviceable enough for the short term, are likely wrong.
From my personal experience and observation, and from lengthy consideration of mankind's historical progression in understanding, I have not even seen an iota that would contraindicate this belief.
AlanF: So far as I can see, it boils down to your emotionally based discomfort with long ages for the universe, since you don't seem to be able to provide any data to give a foundation in reality for your discomfort.
You assumed again that I have some discomfort with an old universe which would again imply I have some discomfort with very old humanity. That is not the case. It has never been the case. I haven't posted anything to indicate that it was the case. So far all I see is emotional reactions based on your assumption that I have been exposed to and have adopted YE theories.
By the by, Young Earthism is wildly entertaining and I thank you for letting me in on their beliefs. I have really enjoyed studying their abductive processes and seeing all the intrinsic difficulties associated to that type of reasoning play out in their explanations of reality.
You invited me to say what I have to say directly. As a species, the more we learn the less we find we know. That was long predicted as an obvious result of proper application of the scientific method. Now we find ourselves at a place where cross-discipline investigation is largely limited by a constraint that seems needless to me. That constraint is a barrier between the so-called "hard" and "soft" sciences, those are the generalized areas between which the least cross-discipline studies occur.
I believe that barrier, along with deeply ingrained respect for long established concepts of reality, would prevent you from being able to understand what I have to say, much less agree. Therefore, I will keep it to myself.
Suffice it to say I am unconvinced that empirical evidence exists that humans have been on earth for at least four million years. Of course, I freely admit that exactly the same amount of empirical evidence exists to disprove that humans existed 10 million years ago.
The universe, however, is almost certainly billions of years old. Empirical evidence supporting that theory exists in abundance, as do tests against theories used to explain observations.
Respectfully,
OldSoul

Archaeologists in Ethiopia discover 12 fossils around 4 million years old

Share this