By nonfiction author Jonathan Whitcomb

The following, at least in part, will probably be included in my upcoming book One LDS Perspective on Evolution [update on March of 2021: This has been postponed]:

Real science is not what’s in a box having a label including the word “science.” It’s how you look into a box. It’s like a particular pair of reading glasses. They usually help you see better while searching through boxes with labels having words like “biology” and “astronomy,” but that doesn’t mean you can’t wear them while searching through a cryptozoology box.

A box labeled “biology” may invite you to put on your real-science reading glasses, and that label may suggest that some people might have worn those glasses while packing that box, but real science is in how we look at things.

Should we ever take off our real-science reading glasses? Of course, especially while enjoying a lovely landscape by looking out a window. We can use those glasses to clean the windowpane, as long as we remember to remove those reading glasses afterwards, to enjoy the outdoor scenery.

Cryptozoology and Science

Glen Kuban has written much in criticizing my investigation of reports of living pterosaurs. To be brief, he seems to be trying to convince people that the work my associates and I have undertaken is not scientific. David Woetzel and I, however, have written scientific papers on living pterosaurs, published in a peer-reviewed journal:

• “The Fiery Flying Serpent” – by Woetzel
• “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific” – by Whitcomb

 

From two scientific papers on modern pterosaurs (Whitcomb and Woetzel)

Kuban, on the other hand, appears to have never written any scientific paper (published in a peer-reviewed journal) on living pterosaurs (LP’s), at least not as of the end of 2018. I now respond to him, since he has brought up the subject of science and cryptozoology, and since he has extensively criticized my writings on LP’s.

A few years after the publication of my scientific paper on extant pterosaurs, I did a study of data that I had accumulated from eyewitness sightings. By early in 2013, I had compiled the data from sighting reports I had received through the end of 2012. The great majority of those 128 reports were from communications between me and the eyewitnesses, in other words first-hand accounts.

Using simple math, I found three independent characteristics of the data, each of them counting seriously against any possibility that hoaxes had any major impact in those 128 reported sightings:

• How sure eyewitnesses were of lack of feathers
• Wingspan estimates
• Long tails of the flying creatures

.

From page 300 of the book Searching for Ropens and Finding God (nonfiction)

I was not imagining what might have happened 65 million years ago. I simply looked at the present, using mathematics to try to learn how plausible it might be for hoaxes to have played any major part in the 128 reports. I discovered that three characteristics proved that hoaxes could not explain the overall sightings.

The Scientist Lord Kelvin

The first British scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords, the mathematical physicist and engineer Lord Kelvin once said the following:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”

I suggest that writers who would ridicule those supporting living-pterosaur investigations think twice. Real science can thrive when scientists use math to make discoveries, and that is what I’ve done in this little-known branch of cryptozoology.

###

.

Living pterosaurs in a scientific paper

. . . be aware that much of my scientific paper is about two expeditions on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, in 2004. I led the first expedition, with my native interpreter Luke Paina; David Woetzel and Garth Guessman were assisted, a few weeks later, by the native interpreter Jacob Kepas.

.

Glen Kuban and Living Pterosaurs

I will not take the time to counter everything negative that Kuban says about me and my writings. I do not have a thousand hours or so that would be necessary to spend on it. I’ll just say that much of it is mostly false, some of it is almost entirely false, and a smaller portion of it is 100% false.

.

Scientific Paper on Modern Pterosaurs

I also include here a few details about some of my cryptozoology books, for the scientific paper is only 13 pages long, and my books have much more information. In addition, the books are more-recently published and contain more-recent sighting reports.

.

Those who search for living pterosaurs

These explorers including, but are not limited to, Jonathan Whitcomb, Garth Guessman, David Woetzel, and Paul Nation.

.

Flying creatures like pterodactyls

Eyewitness reports of living pterosaurs worldwide

.

By the cryptozoology author Jonathan Whitcomb

Introduction

My “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific” was published in the Winter-2009 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Volume 45, #3). I now refer to the last four pages of this scientific paper, with links to images of those pages.

But first be aware that much of my scientific paper is about two expeditions on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, in 2004. I led the first expedition, with my native interpreter Luke Paina; David Woetzel and Garth Guessman were assisted, a few weeks later, by the native interpreter Jacob Kepas.

After those two expeditions on that tropical island, I concluded that the ropen of Umboi is a living pterosaur, similar in general shape to a Sordes pilosus but much larger than fossils of that kind of Rhamphorhynchoid. In addition, the ropen has a long horn-like head crest.

Page 209 of this Journal of Science

This refers briefly to the sighting by native Jonathan Ragu on the coast of Umboi Island. Much on this page, however, is about the possibility that the ropen is a modern living Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur.

Page 210, with this Scientific Paper (11th page of the article itself)

It examines the two interpretations, one by Whitcomb and the other by Woetzel, for what kind of Rhamphorhynchoid the ropen may be: “Dimorphodon or Sordes?” This page also examines eyewitness reliability, and this subject continues into the next page.

Page 211 of this issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly

One section on this page is “Investigator Reliability.” Here’s how it begins:

A few critics have suggested that living-pterosaur investigators are dishonest . . . but to date have offered no evidence. From 1994 through early 2007, eight American creationists have traveled to PNG in eight expeditions (one to three Americans per expedition). These expeditions involved personal financial sacrifice. . . .

Page 212 (or the 13th page of this scientific paper on living pterosaurs)

Here are the surnames of persons mentioned at the end of the article:

• Goertzen
• Kuban
• Naish
• Paiva
• Silcock
• Wellnhofer
• Whitcomb
• Woetzel

###

.

Scientific Paper on Extant Pterosaurs

Almost ten years ago, my scientific paper was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly: “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific.” It was in the Winter issue of 2009 . . . [refers to three pages from that journal of science]

.

Bulverism and religion

A biology professor in Minnesota wrote a blog post, the other week, blasting my research and investigations into sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs (AKA pterodactyls). Most of his declarations about my intentions, however, were false. His mistake about my purposes in writing that page on lds-nonfiction-dot-com, however, was interesting to me; I was actually writing to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who might enjoy reading my most recent book, Searching for Ropens and Finding God . . .

.

Science and living pterosaurs

Skeptics have often suggested two explanations for sightings of pterosaurs: hoaxes and misidentifications. Let’s use scientific reasoning by examining the most recent results of data compilations and analysis, for information obtained from eyewitnesses, in particular regarding the possibility of major hoax involvement.

.

Bulverism and the ropen

“Ropen” deleted on Wikipedia (English)

The “ropen” page on Wikipedia, at one time, had many paragraphs, delighting some cryptozoologists but annoying some skeptics. One biology professor in Minnesota, in particular, detested the many web pages he saw that supported belief in modern living pterosaurs, including the long-tailed ropen. . . . Some critics of modern-pterosaur investigations find fault with imagined motivations of me and my associates, using that bulverism to avoid the real issue of whether or not all species of pterosaurs became extinct.

.

Science and the ropen of Papua New Guinea

The ropen is a long-tailed flying cryptid described as pterosaur-like and reported by eyewitnesses around the world, especially in North America and in the southwest Pacific (including Australia). The word “ropen” comes from Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, where in the local language of Kovai it refers to a large nocturnal flying creature that briefly, on occasion on some nights, glows brightly.

.

Are all pterosaurs extinct?

Many species of pterosaurs have lived on this planet at some time in the past. What evidence is there that all of those species have become extinct? NONE!

.

***************************************************************************

Nonfiction book on living pterosaurs (for children)

The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur

This is a press release on this paperback book about non-extinct “pterodactyls.”

.

To report a sighting of a possible pterosaur, contact Whitcomb.

.

Top of the first page of the scientific paper by Whitcomb

.

I may need to apologize for neglecting to say more, during the past 13 years that I have been writing, about the following. Probably over 98% of my writings, in that time, have been about living pterosaurs rather than about what prompted me to take such a deep interest in sighting reports of those extraordinary flying creatures. It relates to the origin of life relative to ideas about evolution, and that needs a four-part introduction.

1) LDS Scriptures

The four standards of scriptures used by *members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often called *Mormons) are:

• The Book of Mormon
• The Bible
• The Doctrine and Covenants
• The Pearl of Great Price

We generally give no hierarchy to these four, allowing them to simply reveal to us what they will, especially through the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Since we have no precise technical explanation for the origin of life in any of those scriptures, let us use what intelligence and resources God has given us, remembering that we may be arriving at only a piece of the truth as we wait, actively and constructively, for more of the revealed truth that we need.

2) Evolution and Religion

This post (dated April 9, 2015 on LDS Author) introduces the problem we have had in Western societies regarding the use of the word evolution. It says that we have been indoctrinated into equating a philosophy of “evolution” with “science.”

It also says that we have been indoctrinated into believing that dinosaur fossils are extremely old. It briefly introduces readers to the recent lack of Carbon-dating on dinosaur bones, and the post gives two links that go into much more detail about how that dating method reveals that dinosaur fossils are actually much younger than we have been taught.

3) Evolutionary Boundary

This scientific paper was published online, many years ago, but it’s a wordy document. Let’s consider a brief conclusion from that mathematical experiment:

Natural Selection , often called “survival of the fittest,” does the opposite of what Darwin assumed it would: It prevents small simple organisms from evolving into large complex forms of life. In other words, real evolution makes it impossible for modern large life forms (like humans, horses, elephants, lions, and whales) to have ancestors that were small and simple.

That means that the evolution that we often hear about in Western media, the kind that involves little forms of life evolving into big animals, is completely fictional. That has been proven by objective mathematical experimentation.

I, Jonathan Whitcomb, conducted this experiment over a period of six to eight months, early in this century, before I became involved in living-pterosaur investigations.

To any skeptic who might dismiss “Evolutionary Boundary” because of my religious beliefs, I would say this:

1. I was trying to force Darwinian evolution to occur in the mathematical experiment.
2. I failed in my attempt to make one step of that kind of evolution occur.

In other words, I was sincerely trying to be objective, and no simplistic attempt at refuting Darwinian evolution was involved, although I had long suspected that objective examination of relevant details would discredit such a concept of evolution (molecules-to-man by natural selection). If anyone carefully reviews what was done in my experiment, I believe evidence for my objectiveness will be found.

4) “The Gospel and the Scientific View”

For LDS (Mormons), I suggest reading this online article on the official Church site.

.

What is the origin of life?

Introduction

When I got up on the morning of December 10, 2017, long before sunrise, walking towards my office I looked out the high window in our living room. I thought I saw two bright stars shining through the branches of a tree. As I moved towards the office door and then stopped and moved towards that window, I noticed that those two lights quickly changed position relative to those tree branches, too quickly. It was then obvious: They were two reflections of light on the window itself, not stars (reflections on two horizontal plastic bars in the window—that’s what I saw).

Later, after writing some of what you are now reading, I left my office to again look out that window. The star I then saw appeared near the location where I had seen the two reflections. This time, however, my movements revealed that I was looking at a real star, for my changing of position made only a very slight change in the apparent position of the star relative to the tree branches.

Notice that my conclusions were based upon more than simplistic observations. I needed to know about how things appear in three-dimensional space. The dramatic change in apparent position of those two reflections led me to suspect that they were not stars, yet only when I saw that those two lights always appeared at a precise location on those two plastic bars—then is when I concluded that they were reflections.

In other words, sometimes the natural process of learning about something involves at least two stages: learning what it is not and then learning something about what it is. I suggest we use that approach in learning about the origin of life on our planet.

.

Monkey in an enclosure at the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City

Look at two things in the above image and keep them separate in your mind. The monkey is real, a living animal that I photographed a few years ago. The background surrounding the monkey, however, is not a real scene of mountains and trees, for that part of the image is only a painting.

Regardless of how realistic a painting may be, for an animal enclosure in a zoo, it is still only a crude imitation of the appearance of real mountains and real trees. Even if those images appear very much like the mountains and trees where that particular animal would live in the wild, the painting is only a crude visual imitation.

Improving the health of that monkey, or adding more monkeys to the enclosure, or extending the lifespan of that monkey—none of those will make the slightest difference in causing the painting to become more like real mountains or real trees.

It’s not that the images in the painting don’t look like mountains and trees or that points of light on a window don’t look like stars. Monkeys in the wild can have all of those objects in their background when we observe them in their natural habitat. We need to distinguish, however, between crude imitation and the real thing.

Conclusion on Biological Evolution

We may see more than one kind of evolution in living things, but the kind sometimes called “molecules to man” evolution is what I call “the never-ending fairy tale.” When people continuously speculate about what they think happened millions of years ago, how can it be verified objectively?

I don’t mean to imply that I know and understand everything about biological evolution, but I do know that small simple forms of life do not evolve into large complex forms through natural selection. That concept of survival of the fittest is perfectly valid in a number of situations, but it actually prevents simple organisms from evolving into complex organisms. Millions of years are of no help in that kind of evolution, for the longer real evolution takes place, the more difficult it is for a small form of life to evolve a new biological structure that might otherwise eventually make it more complex.

###

.

One LDS Perspective on Evolution

Nonfiction book to be published before the end of April, 2018

.

Ark of Noah in the Bible

Late on the night of January 16, 2018, (9:00-11:45 p.m. Pacific time) I, Jonathan Whitcomb, was interviewed by Dave Scott on Spaced Out Radio . . .

.

Proclamation on Living Pterosaurs

I, Jonathan David Whitcomb, proclaim that not only are not all species of pterosaurs extinct but more than one species is living, and they range in extensive areas of the planet. During the past fifteen years, I have received reports of apparent living pterosaurs from six continents, most of which reports were directly from the eyewitnesses themselves.

.

Living Pterosaurs and Evolution

The official scientific discovery of a species of modern pterosaur, acknowledged in Western science—that can help many persons to wake up and ask why we have been indoctrinated so deeply into an idea that is false. That is part of the awakening that is part of my purpose, whatever people want to think about the age of the earth.

 

This relates to concepts about the “age of dinosaurs,” but let’s put aside that concept for the moment. Have you ever encountered a statement similar to the following?

“Evolution is a proven scientific fact.”

True scientific progress requires working with details, and “evolution” (meaning Darwinian theory) has been compared to a room full of smoke, according to David Berlinski, in the documentary Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed:

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.

Unlimited Common Ancestry

We can blow away some of that smoke by being specific. Many persons assume there is only one concept of biological evolution and they just call it “evolution.” But the General Theory of Evolution mainly involves the philosophy of unlimited common ancestry, so let’s look deeper. Yes indeed it is philosophy and not science, although many persons have assumed it is pure science.

What is unlimited common ancestry? (I like to use that phrase for it is specific.) It’s when a person assumes that when two different biological organisms may have had a common ancestor then they did have one. That is not scientific, it is philosophical.

Darwin used that approach in his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and countless of his followers have continued to use that philosophy. One of the big problems is that this philosophy has been forced into our consciousness (or subconsciousness) in the name of “science.”

When I say unlimited common ancestry (we’ll use UCA), I don’t mean insistence that all living organisms must have had one common ancestor; it’s not quite that. The concept that all plant life had one common and all animal life had another common ancestor—that could fit well into the philosophy of UCA, if the evidence was convincing enough that the two basic forms of life had different original ancestors. The point of this philosophy, in that case, would be insisting we then assume that there were not more than two original ancestors. Notice the insistence.

What do we learn from Genesis? Biological details are scarce indeed, but it seems that this planet originally had many original ancestors of modern organisms, perhaps thousands of original life forms. That’s a far cry from both the insistence of UCA and the countless species that now exist in our wonderful world. Hardly anybody denies all forms of evolution, for humans themselves have caused a wide variety living things to come forth, for example: domesticated animals, including many varieties of cattle, horses, dogs, and cats. But those many kinds came about by human intelligence and from a variety or original ancestors. We did not start with mud puddles but with wonderful early forms of animals. Environment may play a part in shaping some characteristics in animal life, over long periods of time, but the shaping was done in selecting from among many of the wonderful genes that had already existed “after their kind.”

Dating Problems With Dinosaurs

I refer to carbon-14 radiometric dating problems, not dinosaur extinction from those animals hanging out in groups and avoiding serious courtship dating.

The two problems with C14 testing of dinosaur bones comes from two perspectives:

1. The dates are shocking
2. The dating has been discontinued, because of shock

Soon after the 2012 geology conference in Singapore, carbon-dating laboratories, at least in the United States, stopped testing any materials that might be dinosaur remains.

Why? It could make them look silly, for the dates always turn out to be in the range of tens of thousands of years, with radioactive carbon always present. How shocking!

Directly testing the ages of dinosaurs bones always shows them to be only a tiny fraction of the ages that we have been indoctrinated into believing. Dinosaurs really did live alongside humans, and that knowledge comes from carbon-14 dating.

###

.

Carbon Radiometric Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Scientific methods and instrumentation have greatly improved since the earlier days of dinosaur dating, and those old assumptions are now being tested.

Carbon dated dinosaur fossils

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

The Gospel and the Scientific View

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes.

Evolutionary Boundary

Darwin’s Natural Selection actually PREVENTS ANY major biological-development change in ANY organism.

LDS Nonfiction Book

Three nonfiction books by the L.D.S. author Jonathan Whitcomb—each can take you into an astonishing world of cryptozoology, into a narrow field of the paranormal-like investigations of eyewitness accounts of apparent living pterosaurs.

.