Makes sense, although the decay would not affect the same strands of DNA in each sample. If you have a large number of samples, you can fit the missing pieces together and wind up with maybe 80% of the total.
Then you fill the gaps with frog DNA, just like they did in Jurassic Park ;-)

I am afraid I don't want anyone cloning a dinosaur. Yikes - Colorado mountains have many many fossils of prehistoric creatures and the scientists are digging and cleaning weird looking bones. Interesting though to think about.

The EPA wouldn't allow it, all that methane you know. s/

Still, there is hope for some Ice Age Mega mammals. Ultimately all one may need is a blue-print from which to fashion replacement DNA. A saber-toothed tiger would be really cool.

Plus recent extinctions like the Dodo are distinct possibilities using existing DNA.

The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas has footprints from dinosaurs and man together at the same time.

A very well-preserved Mammoth was discovered in Siberia recently, skin and all. Seems that DNA could be gleaned from this creature easily.

#1 makes a point that occurred to me. But millions of years is a long time, with a half life of less than a thousand the fragment stitching might not be possible except in theory.

I suspect this is not the last word and steady progress will be made with older and older samples. Neanderthals, mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, etc. This work will be done by machines, not by humans, and they do not tire.

The half life of radioactive materials is a mathematical known entity. To apply that concept to the degradation of an inert molecule is probably barbra Streisand. Too dependent on conditions and environment. Why do people pay big bucks to preserve their genes cryogenicaly? I am still going to build my 80K volt charged 30 foot fence just in case. It is muslim proof too.

Such molecular breakdown also counters the movie's premise of finding intact DNA in amber-trapped mosquitoes.

Bummer. My young grandson has just announced, "I like dinosaurs!" I'll have to do it "the hard way," I guess.

However -- cloning usually doesn't produce a perfect "copy." The normal practice is to replace the nucleus, which leaves the host cell's mitochondrial DNA [that which is outside the nucleus] in place. That approach, IIRC, has been proposed for the wooly mammoth clones.

The complications and obstacles are huge, but certainly much could be learned from any DNA we can get. In fact, DNA work has led to reclassifying a number of living things, and illuminating relationships that physical features didn't reveal.

Man (or some variation thereof) and dinosaurs HAVE co-existed. Hasn't anyone heard of the etchings on the Ica Stones?

#10, you mean the Ica stones that were proven fakes created by the locals to fleece money from gullible tourists?

I know a lot of people are dumb and can't distinguish reality from Hollywood, but I don't think anyone was actually trying to clone a dinosaur.

#5 - The dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose have three toes. Each toe is about the size of a human foot. The alleged human footprints are incomplete dinosaur footprints. It's scary that people think The Flintstones is true.

Darn, I was looking forward to a T-Rex being cloned and let loose in San Franciso, Chicago, or maybe even D.C.

SO if all goes well all Libs will be extinct in 521 years. Sorry that's not soon enough. Can we expidite the process so it happens in 1 year? (and that is being generous!)