Sciencesciencepaleontologyfossilspideronehundredmillion

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:10 AM

Ancient spider fossils have reflective eyes

A new paper describes a remarkable set of fossil spiders found in South Korea. Two of the fossils – from an extinct spider family called Lagonomegopidae that lived between 110 and 113 million years ago – feature reflective eyes for nighttime hunting.

University of Kansas paleontologist Paul Selden is co-author of the paper, published in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology on January 28, 2019. Seldon said in a statement:

Because these spiders were preserved in strange silvery flecks on dark rock, what was immediately obvious was their rather large eyes brightly marked with crescentic features. I realized this must have been the tapetum — that’s a reflective structure in an inverted eye where light comes in and is reverted back into retina cells. This is unlike a straightforward eye where light goes through and doesn’t have a reflective characteristic.



Selden said that some contemporary spiders feature eyes with a tapetum,
but the new paper is the first to describe the anatomical feature in a fossilized spider.
He said:

In spiders, the ones you see with really big eyes are jumping spiders, but their eyes
are regular eyes – whereas wolf spiders at nighttime, you see their eyes reflected
in light like cats. So, night-hunting predators tend to use this different kind of eye.
This was the first time a tapetum had been in found in a fossil. This tapetum was
canoe-shaped – it looks a bit like a Canadian canoe. That will help us place this
group of spiders among other families.


https://earthsky.org/earth/ancient-spider-fossils-reflective-eyes

10 replies, 186 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ancient spider fossils have reflective eyes (Original post)
Micrometer Feb 20 OP
SatansSon666 Feb 20 #1
Frankenvoter Feb 20 #2
SatansSon666 Feb 20 #3
Frankenvoter Feb 20 #4
SatansSon666 Feb 20 #5
Micrometer Feb 20 #6
nolidad Feb 20 #7
SatansSon666 Feb 20 #8
Micrometer Feb 20 #9
nolidad Feb 20 #10

Response to Micrometer (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:33 AM

1. Nice find.

Drop another piece of the puzzle into place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:59 AM

3. Lol.

What a crock.

Have anything besides a loony blogger that disproves evolution?

No. It has never been disproven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 07:22 AM

4. And yet it's never been proven either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 07:31 AM

5. Of course it has.

By every branch of science that studies it.
Anthropology, geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, chemistry.. and on and on.

Just saying it hasn't been proven doesn't make it so.

Study it and you'll see.
Really study it, don't be like the creationist here that says he studied it for 10 years and can't even get the terminology right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Micrometer (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 08:47 AM

7. Awesome discovery!

I especially love how he pooh-poohs away the fact that after supposedly 110 million years this spider still has soft body parts!

Of course he pulls a rescue device out of thin air- which will fool the ordinary evolution believing person. but it doesn't wash with facts! All the little fishies and crustaceans that are with the spider are normal fossils, soft parts gone and what is there is a mineralized replica!

But the spider was special! He somehow escaped attracting any bacteria (while the rest weren't so lucky) And a low oxygen environment will still cause destruction- you have to have a vacuum to keep oxygen from destroying carbon based parts! Especially in a flood like scenario with conjectured mucus mat possibly burying everything else around it but the spider!

5 stars for teh discovery but 5 Pinocchios for his unscinetific and false explanations on how a soft body could stay preserved for over 100 million years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 08:54 AM

8. Soft tissue fossils doesn't mean there is still soft tissue in the fossil.

You really are clueless.
Absolutely fucking clueless.

Soft tissue preservation means the soft tissue has also mineralized.

Clueless. Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:49 AM

9. Is there any science that you accept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:02 AM

10. Massive amounts!

But as evolutiona nd long long ages are not science- I will continue to point them out.

Study fossil formation- This spider was found in sedimentary rock. that is science

Sedimentary rock is laid down by water events like a flood or geologic events like a volcano with water that is science.

Water guarantees the presence of bacteria That is science

Permineralization fossil forming requires a moist aqueous mixture to fossilize a creature! That is science.

Sedimentary rocks allow for the inflow and outflow of gasses including oxygen--that is science

Oxygen is a great destroyere! That also is science

What is not science in that article is:

110-130 million year old fossil. The radio dating methods have by empirical testing , repitition and research been proven to fatally flawed chronometers.

The background belief in evolution also is a belief and not science. It has never been demonstrated, never been repeated, nor the major mechanism that supposedly produced molecules to man has been demonstrated to do the opposite and degrade creatures not advance them to ever more complexity!

I love real science! Not the dogmatic belief in a hypothesis that when researched in real time runs counter to its own self!

I find it more than amusing that most people here accuse me of touting my beliefs as science! I have repeatedly said over and over that Creation is a belief system like evolution, but real empirical proven science lends more SUPPORT toi the creation model of origins than does the BB/Evolution hypothesis

I have repeatedly shown by both Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists how big E evolution is not a viable reality

I have cited many articles and research papers that show that truth. Mutations destroy- not build! Without mutations taking the supposed original soup and altering it to man ! We just have no evidence! And when I have pressed for the evidence- I get the generic-fossil record! But the fossil record just shows that certain creatures lived and died- not how mutations supposedly turned them from fish to lizard etc.

So no- I love science- but not an untestable unprovable hypothesis that runs counter to what can be tested, observed and repeated! And that is the definition of real science!

What about you?????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencesciencepaleontologyfossilspideronehundredmillion