this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
249 points (97.0% liked)

science

20945 readers
758 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] protist@mander.xyz 68 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Here's a much better source for this than Popular Mechanics.

[–] cashmaggot@piefed.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ty for this by the by =) I see it's teeny-tiny, and that it's not so much that the soft tissue was found, but that the outline of its internal organs were left on record from lack of compression. I'm not sure how that happened, let alone how someone found such a small thing.

[–] jeffreyosborne@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Could you maybe edit the original post to include this better source?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 16 points 1 year ago

Oddly enough, that source doesn't imply soft tissues were preserved. They can tell some things about its brain and guts based on outlines left behind. And also from what they know of other arthropod fossils from the same era - undercutting the uniqueness.

This one is special because it isn't smushed flat like most fossils in this deposit.

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yes, the title is complete BS. The half life of DNA alone is ~500 years.

[–] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Hey thanks. Didn't notice that article about this. It's much better