Are All Pterosaurs Extinct?

Introduction (Modern Pterosaurs)

Glen Kuban has created a web page devoted to discrediting the idea that pterosaurs have lived in human times. An in-depth response is found in the appendix of my book Searching for Ropens, (published by Wingspan Press, second edition in 2007). In brief, Kuban draws attention to the weakest reasons for believing in modern pterosaurs, the weak reports; he also points out flaws or possible flaws in some of the words and reasoning of proponents. Consider two critical points that he ignores: the strongest eyewitness testimony accounts and the philosophical foundations of the conflict (why be open-minded or close-minded about the possibility of modern live pterosaurs). What critical points!

According to Glen Kuban: “While finding a living species of pterosaur would be a monu-mental discovery, it would do nothing to refute mainstream geology.” (web page, early 2007)

Reply: “Do nothing” and “refute” are strong expressions, in this case offering a clue about the nature of what Mr. Kuban means by “mainstream geology,” or the real nature of what he thus labels. True scientific progress normally involves refinements in theory; it sometimes even involves the rejection of a theory that turns out poorly when compared with another theory.

How might Kuban react to the discoveries of three species of living pterosaurs plus two species of living dinosaurs? Would he modify “do nothing to refute mainstream geology?” What about fifteen species of living pterosaurs and dinosaurs? Whether or not he would modify his thinking or the phrasing of his words would depend on how dogmatically he is holding onto a philosophy that is woven into “mainstream geology.”

Both the General Theory of Evolution and standard-model (“mainstream”) geology are based upon the philosophy of Naturalism, which is not to be confused with “natural science.” Naturalism includes the assumption that origins, in the distant past, had nothing to do with any miraculous intervention from any god; “natural science,” on the other hand, requires no opinion on early origins.

“Do nothing to refute” seems to be a well-chosen phrase to protect a philosophy, for scientific hypotheses and theories are not legitimized by this kind of phrase; this is inappropriate in science.

Why Believe in Extinction?

Since Darwin wrote about his conjectures on

the origin of life, dinosaur and pterosaur fossils have been offered as if scientific evidence for

his philosophy of universal common ancestry. After all, a biological microorganism cannot change into a human (over billions of years) without leaving countless organisms in the far distant past; it would be unbelievable. Dinosaurs and pterosaurs appeared to be just what was needed (apparent evidence that many organisms, different from present ones, lived in the distant past); the fossils were gladly assumed to all

be from extinct creatures that lived long ago.

In Searching for Ropens, I wrote, “Since no researcher in Europe [when fossils were first being discovered] had any knowledge of living creatures similar to the fossils, it was assumed that they were all extinct. The key word is ‘assumed.’. . if only 1% of the population of Western Europe, in the late 18th Century, had experience with living pterosaurs, the universal-pterosaur-extinction notion would never have gotten started.” (second edition, page 237).

Extinction Propaganda

Nothing on Mr. Kuban’s web page (as of mid- 2007) mentions any evidence for the extinction of any species of pterosaur. As I wrote (SFR) on page 234, this web page “seems devoid of evidence for pterosaur extinction; does he expect us to take his word for it?”

Without any scientific evidence to support his case of universal pterosaur extinction, we are left with only one explanation: Mr. Kuban is relying on generations of declarations of extinction. But critics of those declarations suggest that these solemn obituary-like proclamations are virtual propaganda, if not sometimes actually dogmatic propaganda. The declarations have been indoctrinating millions into assuming that all pterosaurs and dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.

Does Kuban ignore the strongest evidences for living pterosaurs? Judge for yourself. At least in the earlier versions of his web page, I would say that he is either ignorant of those major points of evidence or he chooses to ignore them. He seems anxious to dance to any tune except "modern pterosaur."

Brian Hennessy, a psychologist working at a medical university, saw a large creature looking “prehistoric” in Papua New Guinea. It had a long tail but

no sign of feathers: apparently

a modern pterosaur.

Gideon Koro, with six other boys (about 1994), saw a giant “ropen” flying over Lake Pung, Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea. Gideon estimated the tail length was “sefan meetuh.” (twenty-two feet)

A flight instructor, with over 13,000 hours of airplane-flying experience, had seen, in 1944, a giant “pterodactyl” with a tail that was at least 10-15 feet long. Duane Hodgkinson lives in Montana.

Paul Nation, of Texas, had videotaped two “indava" lights that investigators believe are from giant long-tailed pterosaurs on the mainland of Papua New Guinea (late-2006 expedition).

Although Mr. Kuban does not suggest that all sightings of "modern pterosaurs" in Papua New Guinea are misidentifications of Flying Fox fruit bats, he says, “It's likely that at least some southern hemisphere sightings of ‘pterosaurs’ are explained by fruit bats.” He then admits, “Of course, no bats are known to be bioluminescent, or that have wing spans of 25 feet.” He then gives no explanation for the creature’s bioluminescence or giant size. He also seems to have no explanation for tails between ten feet and twenty-two feet. Since he does not seem to have any explanation, why does he not admit this? Is it because he is so focused on discrediting the idea of living pterosaurs that he ignores the most important evidence: valid and credible evidence that pterosaurs really do live in Papua New Guinea?

Examine each eyewitness testimony and then compare the many similarities in the descriptions of the flying creatures. The true credibility of the living-pterosaurs idea then will become clear. And for learning about rare nocturnal creatures in remote areas, clarity in thinking about the possibility of living pterosaurs, however rare for Westerner professors, may be essential.