Well, although I don't dispute that we do retain some vestiges of our evolutionary experience in our Amygdala, I think the article is worthless fluff.
Phobia, at least in the psychological sense, is a fear disproportionate to the danger or irrational fear. Nothing wrong with avoiding snakes or spiders for the sake of self preservation. Not setting foot outdoors because of a possible spider or snake 'out there' is irrational. The article uses the word 'phobia' in the psychological context but with the literary translation of simply 'fear'.
What I think the spider-cricket experiment could just as easily prove is that a lack of stress in pregnant crickets produce chilled offspring that make easy prey as opposed to a healthy fear of spiders specifically, thereby negating any argument of hereditary fear of spiders from last last couple of million years.
The article also quite effortlessly jumps the chasm from crickets to humans.
In the picture caption, the author mentions that the female consumed the male due to not meeting courtship demands, but propagated anyway. Like, ok, I'll spread your genes, but because you suck at courtship, I kill you. Makes no sense.
The 'kids identifying spiders and snakes' experiment was taken out of context and the original actually proves the opposite:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124111144.htm
I always thought human eyesight kind of sucked compared to other mammals.
I'll stop now.