I'm seeing science articles about having 'resurected the dire wolf' and you absolutely did not do that, you hacks.

You have a grey wolf with 20 edits to it's DNA

Is this like how jurassic park dinosaurs are like 20% frog

Rama : no, it's more like a frog that's .1% dinosaur

Big-ass frogs

Dinosaurs are basically oversized birds anyway, why would you use frog DNA of all things.

"Dinosaurs are birds" was still new theory when the book and movie were made (and that's a plot point). Crichton presumably didn't have the geneticists think too hard about it so that way he could put in the sex swap twist

100% to facilitate the sex swap plot point

but yeah, I keep seeing these headlines too and it's such a dumb attention grab

"We've resurrected the woolly mammoth!" /reveals a cow with slightly coarser hair

"Well, I mean, we spliced a couple of mammoth genes into this cow, but that's the same thing, right??"

they're not even dire wolf genes, splicing in dire wolf genes for coat color make wolves blind

I appreciate that genetics works exactly like programming in that specific respect

the aspect of 'Oh, this works fine in this program I'll just-and it's broken."