Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do Humans and Turtles Share “Key Brain Function” Going Back 320 Million Years?

Certainly not, as the article below demonstrates

The first sentence of a recent popular science article is a perfect example of the difference between observational science (testable, observable, and repeatable) and historical science (an interpretation of the past based on worldview—a belief). See if you can catch the switch between observational and historical science in this story about brain similarities between turtles and humans.

The article is titled, “Israeli researchers find humans and turtles, share key brain function going back 320 million years.” The first sentence reads, Israeli scientists have discovered, through research on living turtles, that the brain’s ability to distinguish between new objects and the same object seen from different angles likely evolved at least 320 million years ago, when mammals and reptiles split from a common ancestor, according to a recently published study.

Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable—it’s science done in the “here and now.” So the researchers’ study of the living turtles’ brains is observational science. Here’s how they did it:

By recording neural activity in the turtles and tracking their eye movement with specially developed cameras, the researchers . . . were able to examine how the turtle brain responded to repetitions of the same visual stimulus and the introduction of a new stimulus, as they moved their eyes, and the stimuli fell on different parts of the retina.

But then the researchers quickly move into historical science, where they take their evolutionary worldview and apply it to the observed evidence, jumping from observations of turtles’ cognitive ability to the assumption that it evolved 320 million years ago. Obviously, they did not observe that. It’s an assumption they made because of their beliefs about the past.

Both classes of creatures [mammals and reptiles] evolved from a common ancestor that left the water and moved onto land. It is thought that this ancestor had a three-layered cerebral cortex (turtles still have three, while mammals now have a six-layered one) and visual abilities that far exceeded those of fish and other marine creatures, which can only see short distances.

Turtles having a three-layered cerebral cortex and the ability to distinguish objects from multiple angles is observational science. The supposed idea that humans and turtles share this ability because of a common ancestor from 320 million years ago has not been observed—it’s their (faulty) worldview being applied to the evidence.

It’s vital that everyone understand the difference between historical and observational science—and the ultimate foundation of the competing worldviews of creation and evolution. It’s really God’s Word vs. man’s word!

So did researchers demonstrate that turtles and humans share a key brain function because of shared ancestry? No, not at all. They simply demonstrated that turtles have the ability, like we do, to distinguish the same object from multiple angles. In a biblical worldview, we know that’s because God designed the brains of both humans and turtles and gave us both what we need to survive and thrive in our fallen world.

by Ken Ham on March 2, 2026
Featured in Ken Ham Blog

Another demonstration of the world view's misinterpretation of science. Thank God for Ken Ham and all those wonderful scientist who work with him to set the record straight.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Charity · 70-79
Well according to science of evolution either through the process of abiogenesis which means life sprung up instantaneously from chemicals and begin to evolve or the process of panspermia which means living organisms came down to Earth from space and began evolving..... If you go back far enough all life forms on Earth insects / sea life / reptiles / fowls mammals / are related and come from one SOURCE.

According to the science of evolution mammals and reptiles did evolve from fish, humans from a certain fish. (You know they had to separate humans)
HOW HUMAN EVOLVED FROM FISH | JOURNEY OF EVOLUTION FROM FISH TO HUMANS - YouTube https://share.google/x1nsLcscikk4PGuGJ

I evolution maybe man's way of understanding God's creation BUT there is a huge difference: in Scripture, which coincides with evolution, you see God told the waters and the earth to bring forth life abundantly beast and cattle //// but God himself formed man and placed man in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man so man did not evolve man was formed by the hand of God and God breathed himself the breath of life into man and Man became a living soul. God did not breathe the breath of life into none of his other creations.

Turtles seemingly evolved from a totally different type of fish, amphibian /
Vertebrate Evolution | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/bFEpM4dnvnCz4RyQL

Man did not evolve from fish! Commonalities but separate.
@Charity where in this process did God take over from nature again? Just the last step?

Charity · 70-79
@NerdyPotato

Where in the process? What you pictured is the theory of evolution, that is man's science, not God's. All of God's design!

God is the ultimate scientist, God is the one who "created everything from nothing" - who was that, Hawkins that said before the Big bang theory nothing existed. Scientist can't even make their mind up on that. God said let there be light / Walla / what science refers to as the Big bang singularity with that burst of microwave radiation light that lit up the entire universe, the first light / light that can't be seen by the naked eye.

Scientists can't even make their mind up on how life began on Earth and I listed the two theories in my first comment, leaning more to one than the other. At one point they didn't know how RNA came into existence, which is the building block of life, now they just attributed the existence of RNA to whatever theory concerning the origin of life they choose to use.

The only thing scientists can do is find the commonness in the the majority of life forms and label it evolution.

If you believe mankind evolved from a fish, into a form of primate, then into man - good for you - keep on believing that.
@Charity
What you pictured is the theory of evolution, that is man's science, not God's. All of God's design!

But you said earlier that God created earth and then commanded that to create animals through evolution, and that he only created humans directly. So where's the cutoff point in that image between evolution and personal creation?

Hawkins that said before the Big bang theory nothing existed.
No, he didn't.

Scientist can't even make their mind up on that.
The reason why science works, is because it adapts to new information. That doesn't mean scientists don't know what to think about the information they have available at any given time.

At one point they didn't know how RNA came into existence, which is the building block of life, now they just attributed the existence of RNA to whatever theory concerning the origin of life they choose to use.
Great example! At one point they didn't know. Then they got more information and wrote an explanation that fits all that. And if even more information comes in that shows that first explanation doesn't explain some things, they adapt it so it explains those too.

If you believe mankind evolved from a fish, into a form of primate, then into man - good for you - keep on believing that.
Thanks, I'll do that. It's a much better explanation than some invisible being creating everything from nothing. The major flaws in the human body make perfect sense as a result of random changes over many generations, but not as so called intelligent design by an all powerful entity.
Charity · 70-79
@NerdyPotato

Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn https://share.google/dvx1jUTsQvjOfaOdo

[media=https://youtu.be/Iw4lJzoadh0?si=BcCEpRugycQmaHnH]

He created man in the form of what we call man: What does "Man" look like from your view? According to science since all humans including the neanderthal are descendants of the homo erectus, what did the homo erectus look like? There are so many different pictures, less ape, like more ape like even try to give them white skin. OUT OF AFRICA. Your a sarcasm is lacking
[media=https://youtu.be/G25X4m1gPwc?si=6LdcxZ8AEpHO3Axb]

Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program https://share.google/MQfK0e5SD7bINRBnL

I have taken and is taking education from those who report (reporters) on the writings of those who did the studying called scientists. Your input has no meaning for me.

Good, then you are a walking, thinking, talking fish.

And I'll leave you with this - and I know you will not grasp the connection.

[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSkXDmV6Io]

[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8-S-OE_-AH0]

[media=https://youtu.be/rO_M0hLlJ-Q?si=CsvnWnBQzseOlYjF]
@Charity if you actually read the article you shared, you'd have known he said the Big Bang originated from a singularity without space or time, and that he explicitly said the Big Bang did not create the universe from nothing.

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said

I have taken and is taking education from those who report (reporters) on the writings of those who did the studying called scientists.
If you stop at the interpretation of journalists, and dummy even read that all the way through, that explains a lot. Those often misrepresent the study results for an interesting headline, as perfectly demonstrated by your previous example about the universe being created out of nothing. When I see a report about a study, the first thing I therefore do is look for the source and read what the scientists themselves claim they found, how they did that and what limitations the study had.

Your input has no meaning for me.
Thank you for your honesty. Then I will not answer any further questions.