i think most people who bring up the amphibian dna in jurassic park are missing the point. this is not about whether the book or the movies can find an in-universe justification for scaly dinos or not; it is a bit more meta than that.
blockbuster high-budget dinosaur movies shape the public perception of dinosaurs far more than popular science books and magazines (or peer-reviewed papers). most people who saw the movies did not read the book and did not remember the small plot details about the dna even in the movie (i do not mean fans who post on forums such as these, i mean the vast majority of movie-going audience). what they remember are the dinosaurs and what they looked like.
just out of curiosity, bob, are you one of those people who think pluto should be classified in the same category as the 8 planets of our solar system...for nostalgia's sake?
blockbuster high-budget dinosaur movies shape the public perception of dinosaurs far more than popular science books and magazines (or peer-reviewed papers). most people who saw the movies did not read the book and did not remember the small plot details about the dna even in the movie (i do not mean fans who post on forums such as these, i mean the vast majority of movie-going audience). what they remember are the dinosaurs and what they looked like.
just out of curiosity, bob, are you one of those people who think pluto should be classified in the same category as the 8 planets of our solar system...for nostalgia's sake?