I have interviewed eyewitnesses of apparent pterosaurs since 2004, including two who reported such flying creatures gliding over the I-5 Freeway near Griffith Park, in Los Angeles, in 2013. Most eyewitnesses have appeared credible, with no obvious motivation for a hoax and almost never any sign of a mental health problem. Misidentifications, in many sightings, are unlikely. So how do these sightings relate to geology? It’s complicated.

Let’s examine the words of one skeptic who was adamant that “there is currently no even vaguely convincing evidence for living pterosaurs” [David Hone, early 2009]. He also said:

Even if pterosaurs are alive today and we could prove it, it would *not* disprove or even challenge evolutionary theory. It would just add one group to an admittedly short list that survived the KT extinction and then crawled around for a long time undetected.

I see several problems with the above statement. Let’s consider each problem, beginning with “evolutionary theory.”

There is no Unified, Concise “Evolutionary Theory”

I suggest that common definitions of “evolution” often do not fit neatly together in any form that is accepted by any great majority of scientists. The American philosopher and author David Berlinski put it more strongly:

Before you can ask, “Is Darwinian Theory correct or not?” you have to ask the preliminary question: “Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?” That’s a very different question.

One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian Theory is: man that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematical Physics. And Mathematical Physics lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual decent down the level of intelligibility, until we reach Evolutionary Biology.

Sometimes a supporter of Darwin’s philosophy will give an example of one form of evolution as if it were evidence for unlimited common ancestry. But a cave fish losing sight is an example of the loss of genetic information, better termed “devolution,” which is the opposite of Darwin’s idea of small simple organisms evolving into large complex ones. And that is just one example of how one form of “evolution” does not necessarily give any evidence at all for unlimited common ancestry philosophy.

Would Proof of Living Pterosaurs be Meaningless?

Getting back to David Hones proclamation, look again at his words: “It would just add one group,” referring to organisms that he believes survived the “KT extinction.” But I have been proclaiming that a number of species of pterosaurs are still living and that those flying creatures include both “basal” and Pterodactyloid types. The official scientific discovery of those species of still-living pterosaurs, in those two types, would create a huge concussion, smashing through the façade of universal-extinction dogmas.

How has Darwin’s philosophy, his General Theory of Evolution, been promoted for generations of human life? Much of the promotion has been through giving examples of ancient life as if extinctions were general for various forms. Many kinds of dinosaurs and pterosaurs have been displayed in the context of general extinctions, as evidence that they were “ancient” forms, and that we now live among mostly “modern” forms of life.

To proclaim that the discovery of various species of living pterosaurs would not “even challenge evolutionary theory” gives us additional evidence that those ideas are philosophical, not scientific. When a scientific idea is threatened, the foundation of that idea can be reevaluated, with the possibility that it may be overthrown; when a philosophical idea is threatened, however, new explanations are often brought up, with speculations given as support for the old idea. Here lies the weakness in Hone’s proclamation that the discovery of living pterosaurs would not “even challenge evolutionary theory.” Mr. Hone inadvertently demonstrates that “evolutionary theory” is not scientific but philosophical.

What Does That Mean: “Short List?”

Hone refers to another theory, a single mass extinction event many millions of years ago, at least according to that thinking. Wikipedia explains the idea thus:

The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, formerly known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earth—including all non-avian dinosaurs—that occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years (Ma) ago.

Notice the phrase “including all non-avian dinosaurs.” The pterosaur expert David Peters said, “Everyone knows that pterosaurs, dinosaurs and a host of other prehistoric reptiles died out at the K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary ~65 mya.” That means pterosaurs are meant to be included. But who told all those species of dinosaurs and pterosaurs that they all had to become extinct? It didn’t actually work out so neatly as all that, for some species still survive, albeit acknowledged in cryptozoology circles, not yet scientifically acknowledged.

The point is this: The list is not really so short if a number of species of dinosaurs and pterosaurs are still living in forms easily recognized as quite similar to the fossil forms. Proclamations that for over a century have supported Darwin’s unlimited common ancestry philosophy are demolished with numerous discoveries of modern dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Confidence in the underlining axioms will indeed be shaken.

Pterosaur Extinction and Glen Kuban

To the best of my knowledge, Glen Kuban is a geologist, at least as an amateur, supporting standard models. He said something similar to part of David Hone’s statement:

While finding a living species of pterosaur would be a monumental discovery, it would do nothing to refute mainstream geology.

Again, here is Hone’s statement:

Even if pterosaurs are alive today and we could prove it, it would *not* disprove or even challenge evolutionary theory.

Standard model (“mainstream”) geology is closely tied to unlimited common ancestry (“evolutionary theory”). They seem to closely support each other, and neither one is commonly acknowledged to be based on the philosophy of extreme naturalism, even though that is indeed their foundation. In a sense, both Davie Hone and Glen Kuban are correct: No number of pterosaur discoveries can refute or disprove what is, in its essence, a philosophy rather than a science. Those two have unwittingly uncovered that startling fact. Darwinian evolution and mainstream geology are based on a philosophy, not on a scientific foundation.

.

The Griffith Park Astronomy Museum, just west of two sighting locations for modern living pterosaurs

.

Pterosaur Sightings Near Griffith Park

I noticed several differences between the two sightings. The first was of three flying creatures, gliding in a triangular formation . . . the second was of one flying creature, gliding in a different direction and at a different time of day.

California Ropens – Are They Woodpeckers?

When referring to the sighting of an apparent pterosaur southeast of Griffith Park (May 13, 2013), one skeptic said, “This sounds like possibly another series of sightings of an outsized woodpecker similar to the Ivory-billed woodpecker.” But that remark appears to be a hasty response, without reference to the critical sighting of three “dragons” just ten weeks earlier and just a mile and a half to the north.

.