I'm not a chemist or a biologist or botanist or paleoantologist, but I was wondering if any of the pseudo-

Question

scientific principles/concepts that were espoused in the first Jurassic Park film from 1993 are plausible? Like, when the scientists extracted the blood from fossilized ancient mosquitos and then were able to do this and that and this and that and then come up with dinosaurs. Spielberg did make it almost look plausible. Now, I'm not gullible enough to actually think that this could work, but I am a bit of a dreamer/optimist. In theory, could any of that pseudo-science work? And could we in fact bring back an extinct species of animals that way?

Answer 1

If you could find DNA in such blood (unlikely to have survived at all) it would be in tiny bits. Similar to restoring Shakespeare's plays printed in Polish from a manuscript entirely punched out with a paper punch and then 80-90% of the dots thrown away.

Given that supposition, however, it was a pretty good story.

Answer 2

Howard gave a good analogy.

Did you know film makers do consult with scientists prior to making the movie.
For ideas, to create a script, to seem real/plausible.
But it is often exaggerated or limited.

As a scientist, I think they do a good job.
Remember, after all, it is just a fictionized movie,
for entertainment, and to an audience of average folks.

Time is distorted as well.
In the show CSI, it only takes them 2 days to discover something.
In reality it could take weeks, months or years to accomplish.
If a typical study took just 2 days.
I could have got my Ph.D. in 6 months

Answer 3

Not that way. You must remember that the T-Rex had to develop in the environment of 65 million years ago, just as you need to develop in your environment.