All data from fossils and experiments to date suggests that DNA is simply unlikely to survive for tens of millions of years. Even if scientists did find DNA fragments in dinosaur fossils, these would probably be very short.
The Jurassic Park franchise's dinosaurs are not at all scientifically accurate. The first film was decent for 1993, but the sequels did not improve the accuracy - they did the exact opposite.
It is therefore entirely possible for prehistoric genetic material to survive for up to one million years. But the big dinosaurs departed this life some 66 million years ago. So the prospect of finding enough viable DNA material in what remains of them today is therefore vanishingly remote.
Even well-preserved whole animals like mammoths are unable to be cloned by today's scientists, according to CNN. It doesn't seem like the science to clone a full dinosaur is possible, but Jurassic Park does in part account for the limits of modern science.
Frozen DNA can only last about a million years, and non-avian dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago. However, there is a strikingly brilliant and brave way of obtaining their DNA. If scientists had the ability to bring back dinosaurs, would a real Jurassic Park be made? Of course not.
Many of them probably could survive today. Dinosaurs ruled the world for 150 million years, and endured hot and cold spells, volcanic eruptions, and changing sea levels. There is nothing about today's world that would be fatal to them.
A team has extracted what could be DNA molecules from a 125-million-year-old fossil dinosaur, according to a study published last month (September 24) in Communications Biology.
This is why, even though we have an abundance of dinosaur fossils, we don't have any dinosaur DNA. The beasts died out 66 million years ago, and the DNA would simply not survive that long. When DNA degrades, the once-long strands of information break apart into smaller and smaller pieces.
Paleontologist Jack Horner, who served as the science adviser for all five "Jurassic Park" movies, said the depiction of the T. rex is far from reality, too. The real T. rex was likely colorful and bird-like, preferring opportunistic scavenging to chasing down prey.
Not all of the dinosaur designs in the Jurassic Park franchise are scientifically accurate in terms of their physiologies and appearances. The depiction of the T-Rex's sight in the films is based on a falsehood; paleontologists believe that the T-Rex could see objects and animals whether they were moving or not.
While birds are the closest living descendants of dinosaurs, crocodilians are their closest living relatives, highlighting the diverse and complex tree of life that connects modern species with their ancient ancestors.
Even with new collection technologies, under the best possible conditions, the limit of DNA survival is perhaps 1 million years. The last of the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so Jurassic Park likely won't become a reality anytime soon.
This means that scientists found the particular order of their DNA. Doing this helped provide more evidence for scientists to confirm that the chicken is currently the closest living relative to the T-Rex.
Is Jurassic Park scientifically accurate according to NASA?
According to scientists at NASA, Jurassic Park is one of the best movies in the sci-fi genre to date, despite there being some inaccuracies in the film, including the portrayal of the prehistoric creatures, which were eventually proven inaccurate by the scientific and paleontologic communities.
The sources of rexy's size have always been conflicting. Website says rexy is 40ft long and the jurassic world artbook says rexy is 44ft long. Now in my opinion, 44 feet long rexy is more reasonable and logical.
Nope. A team of researchers tried to extract DNA from a couple of bees caught in tree resin that wasn't even hardened into amber yet — and they couldn't do it. It turns out that amber (and resins in general) aren't great at preserving DNA.
Rather than a small dinosaur that relied on gimmicks such as venom and a neck frill to subdue its prey, Dilophosaurus was a powerful predator and one of the largest land animals in North America when it lived during the early Jurassic period, which lasted from about 201 to 174 million years ago.
Why can't we make dinosaurs like in Jurassic Park?
Bottom line: We can't recreate dinosaurs from their DNA because the DNA no longer exists. DNA disintegrates in about 7 million years, and dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago.
CGI was then used to build on top of what the production team had already created on-set. In other words, Jurassic Park's CGI still looks so good today because there isn't much of it in the film, which makes sense considering the limitations of the technology at the time.
To obtain it, evolutionary geneticist Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, took bone cores from a woolly mammoth found in Siberian permafrost. The very cold winters and short, cool, and dry summers in the region turned out to be ideal for preserving DNA.
The oldest DNA ever recovered has revealed a remarkable two-million-year-old ecosystem in Greenland, including the presence of an unlikely explorer: the mastodon.
These advances in paleontology and genetic technology have made the idea of cloning dinosaurs just a little more probable sometime in the far future. But it's still not at all likely, especially not in our lifetimes. Want to learn more about cloning, dinosaurs and other topics?
T. rex's collagen proved to be most similar to chickens and ostriches; its next closest match was to alligators. Chickens and ostriches are only distantly related to each other, so the research says little about what kind of birds might be the closest relatives of the famous carnivore.
“It is doubtful that DNA stays preserved for a long time inside the resin,” paleontologist David Peris, who led a study recently published in PLOS ONE, told SYFY WIRE. "The permeability of resin, especially in hydrated conditions, makes it a non-viable environment for preserving organic molecules."
There are a number of research benefits that come with de-extinction. For instance, some scientists believe studying previously extinct animals and looking at how they function could help fill some gaps in our current theories around evolution. De-extinction could also have a beneficial impact on the environment.
