It's mentioned in the movie that they use the DNA of a frog to complete the code, but the dinos have no frog characteristics other than being able to change sex.
closed as off-topic by Buzz, Valorum, RDFozz, Edlothiad, Dave Johnson Jul 11 '18 at 20:06
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions seeking scientific solutions or explanations are off-topic unless related directly to a cited work of fiction. There are several other Stack Exchange sites dedicated to answering questions on non-fictional sciences. For more information, see What is our actual policy on science questions? on meta." – Buzz, Valorum, Edlothiad
In an answer to a related question, Quuxplusone supplies a quote that's just as relevant to this question (page 123 in Quuxplusone's copy of Jurassic Park):
[Wu] paced the living room, pointed to the monitors. "I don't think we should kid ourselves. We haven't re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we've done is reconstruct the part — or at least a version of the past. And I'm saying we can make a better version."
"Better than real?"
"Why not?" Wu said. "After all, these animals are already modified. We've inserted genes to make them patentable, and to make them lysine dependent. And we've done everything we can to promote growth, and accelerate development into adulthood."
Hammond shrugged. "That was inevitable. We didn't want to wait. We have investors to consider."
"Of course. But I'm just saying, why stop there? Why not push ahead to make exactly the kind of dinosaur that we'd like to see? One that is more acceptable to visitors, and one that is easier for us to handle? A slower, more docile version for our park?"
Hammond frowned. "But then the dinosaurs wouldn't be real."
"But they're not real now," Wu said. "That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality here." He shrugged helplessly. He could see he wasn't getting through. Hammond had never been interested in technical details, and the essence of the argument was technical. How could he explain to Hammond about the reality of DNA dropouts, the patches, the gaps in the sequence that Wu had been obliged to fill in, making the best guesses he could, but still, making guesses. The DNA of the dinosaurs was like old photographs that had been retouched, basically the same as the original but in some places repaired and clarified, and as a result— [...]
The final paragraph of the quote essentially answers this question. The characters in the novel (as well as the readers, especially readers in 1990) have no idea what real dinosaurs were like. They have skeletons and footprints and coprolites, but they don't have an original to compare their creations to. They can't know what features of the clones are "correct," and what features were introduced by frog DNA. You might say "it's like a sock drawer in there." The dinosaurs' coloration, or temperament, or food preferences, or sleep cycles may be more froglike than saurian, and nobody would have any way to know.
This question becomes hairier as time passes, because in 2018, we have additional information about what dinosaurs must have looked like. A bunch of them probably had feathers. The Jurassic World movies, with zero feathers between them, appear to be wilfully ignorant, or obstinately unscientific.
But in our world as well as in the world of the movies, those things aren't dinosaurs. They are elaborate tricks (of genetic engineering or of special effects), executed decades ago, designed to fool the characters and the audience into believing that they are.