this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
246 points (96.9% liked)

science

14722 readers
899 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] protist@mander.xyz 67 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] cashmaggot@piefed.social 25 points 2 months 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 2 months ago

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

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 16 points 2 months 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 2 months ago

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

[–] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

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