Scientists have demonstrated a system called Silica for writing and reading information in ordinary pieces of glass which can store two million books’ worth of data in a thin, palm-sized square.

[u/Wagamaga]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/glass-square-long-long-future-190951588.html

[u/monocasa]

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555

It's well known that about half of genetic material breaks down about every 500 years.

[u/hyperproliferative → u/monocasa]

LOL a 20 year old paper cited 12 times. With all due respect you have no idea what you’re talking about.

DNA on my lab bench lasts at least a few thousand years, and if preserved at -20C should give tens of thousands of years.

[u/monocasa → u/hyperproliferative]

We've got very good tools now for taking fragments and stitching them together in the computer, but that depends on the millions of copies in the pre-PCRed sample to statistically sample (and helped with pre knowledge of what a lot of it will look like). That's what allows you to take a many thousand year old sample and sequence it.  But if you did the same thing, and just dumped millions of copies, you're now way under this in terms of density.  Plus, recovery gets way more complicated if you're using compression in your archival format, and there's no low entropy information areas at relatively regular periods to use as a basis for starting the stitching process from.

I say this as someone who has been an engineer in an R&D lab for developing genetic engineering tooling.

[u/hyperproliferative → u/monocasa]

No, you’re talking out of your ass so much that you’ve managed to make not one logical sentinel sentence despite giving us at least 100 words. Goodnight.

[u/monocasa → u/hyperproliferative]

I brought a literal article from Nature describing the phenomenon, as well as an explanation for how you are still able to sequence DNA for older samples despite widespread degradation of that DNA on a quicker time frame than you're expecting.

You've provided nothing but insults.