>> Some of the comments from faculty that have been made are:
>> "Evolution is an esoteric field" (My favorite)
>> "Molecular evolution is just using the tools of molecular biology but is
> not really molecular biology" (This is the major criticism)
Depending on what you are doing, and how you are doing it, I might
have to agree with that one. In my thesis I learned to "cook-book"
my way through PCR protocols that others had designed (with
occasional minor modifications). I studied genetic differentiation
in a group of fungi through these PCR amplified DNAs, but didn't do
anything "novel or molecular" beyond this. I only used these DNAs as
"characters" in a greater analysis. I guess you could argue the
point either way. Now if I had designed my own primers and
protocols to get to that point, then I might consider at least part
of the work as having been molecular biology.
> "Molecular evolution belongs in the realm of biology, not biochemistry or
> molecular biology" (????)
>> "Studies beyond the gene or protein are beyond the realm of biochemistry or
> molecular biology" (in other words if it is not addressed in Stryer it's
> not biochemically related - species, populations, etc.)
>> Maybe it is just the program I am in, but i never realized there was
> such a rift between the various disciplines. To me, there is so much
> overlap, I don't know how you can dismiss one or the other and draw such
> sharp boundaries between them.
> I would be interested in your thoughts or suggestions on how to
> address this. Anybody else out there have the same problem?
> John Demboski
> University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dept. of Plant Pathology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
<kzeller at plantpath.ksu.edu>
"Mock not the procrastinators,...
for they will be the last to die!"