Adam

There has been controversy over the past two decades concerning the origin of the world. The basic difference between the two sides had originally been the source of verifiable information pertaining to the solution of this problem: religious revelation (documented in holy books) or scientific research (trial and error). This has changed. Though religious documentation has not been abandoned, the revelations revealed therein have been proclaimed by some to have scientific justification.
Since religious mythology has encroached onto scientific endeavor, it seems only fair that scientific conclusions venture into the domain of mythology. That is what I intend to do here but, unlike religion which proclaims their revelations to be more than mythological, I do not make such a claim. The conclusions herein, based on the scientifically proven fact of evolution, are enthusiastically embraced as no more (and no less) than pure mythology. Just as Plato used Socrates’ proof of human cognition to launch the mythology of a perfect world (Heaven) of which the world we inhabit is just a reflection, so I will attempt to launch the mythological consequences of evolution.
Let’s begin with the beginning according to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic writings -- Genesis (creation itself). How the cosmos began is not really addressed here so much as the origin and subsequent development of the human animal. The creation of the cosmos is pretty much determined by this otherwise pitifully insignificant event because, while Genesis suggests that only a few thousand years have elapsed, most of the scientific community has determined that several million (even several billion) years were required for it to have occurred, and scientists claim to have proven their case. The Evangelical community, on the other hand, has claimed it can scientifically prove that the science of most scientists is faulty and that scientists have proven nothing.
Thus begins my version of the mythological consequences of evolution. There is a story whose mythological basis would seem to precede the genesis story of Adam and Eve. The first human created, it says, was neither (or both) male and/or female. When this creature displeased the Creator, She/He/It divided this person into two separate but equal parts and placed each on opposite sides of the world. Since that separation, each has been desperately seeking its other half.
The romantic result from this mythological separation has been a quest for the perfect mate. The chance for this search to be successful is very small, but there is always (usually futile) hope.
Along these lines some scientists (I cannot emphasize enough that most scientists have rejected this idea as ridiculous and with no scientific justification at all, and those who made this suggestion now seem very, very embarrassed by it) have suggested that all our organs could be the result of an attempt by one organism to invade, and another organism to envelop. Rather than one organism devouring the other from the inside, or the other organism digesting the invading organism, a parasitic relationship developed which over time resulted in a symbiotic relationship, the invading organism finding a nurturing environment within the other organism and the other benefiting from the additional resources provided by the invading organism.
Having thus explained (mythologically of course) Eve, the next step would be the origin of Adam. In other words, how did male and female come to be? What is male and what is female? A puzzle even more intriguing than the creation (evolution) of man is the separation of humans and most plants and animals into male and female. How have what appear to be two completely opposite species been incorporated into one body? The mythological possibilities are overwhelming, but only one will be presented here -- my mythology of the consequences of evolution.
Though complex, early life forms were relatively simple in relation to plants and animals today. For example, there is a primordial amoeba and there is what has remained a life form so primordial many question whether it is really a life form at all -- the virus. Viruses invade a cell (amoeba-like organism) and use that cell’s resources to replace its DNA with that of the virus many times over. When the cell’s resources are depleted, the now many viruses burst forth to seek new prey. The cell (an amoeba-like organism) gains sustenance by absorbing nutrients (including any nearby living organisms). Suppose it is unable to digest or eject some of these organisms, including a viral infection. Suppose further that the virus is unable to completely destroy all the DNA of the cell (amoeba-like organism) leaving only part of its DNA attached to the remnants of the cell’s DNA. Thus the virus is unable to reproduce itself, partly because it cannot escape and partly because it is no longer its original self. Neither is the cell its original self.
A cell reproduces by dividing itself. This the original cell can do, but its progeny cannot. They are sterile mutants, some with a majority of predominantly viral genes and some with a majority of predominantly cellular (amoeba-like) genes. Being sterile they should have died out but the viral mutant, still with its hunter instincts, sought out the amoeba-like cell and attempted to invade it; and the amoeba-like cell, still with its appetite for surrounding nutrients, exuded chemicals to attract suitable prey to envelop. Both succeeded, the one releasing some of its preponderantly viral genes into the predominantly amoeba-like cell and the amoeba-like cell, having engulfed the viral cell, by incorporating enough of the viral cells into its DNA to reproduce.
This would be a greatly simplified version of what might (mythologically, of course) have happened. From the predominantly amoeba-like cell there is a primordial need to feed, just as there is from the predominantly viral cell a primordial need to seek out, invade, and ultimately destroy. The predominately amoeba-like cell, however, does not seek out prey so much as attract it and absorb it when invaded. Thus it sends out signals -- chemicals, vibrations, or some other method of attraction -- which makes the predominantly viral cell aware of its presence. Thus you have the situation of two life forms, each the natural prey of the other, but necessary for propagation (sometimes of one and sometimes of the other) based largely on chance.
Some will make much of human habits that seem to suggest this myth is actual fact, such as men talking to other men about women with contempt and women talking to other women about men with contempt. For men there is the superior tone in the word “sissy” meaning “like a girl” and the antagonistic tone in the word “witch” meaning “devious woman.” For women there is the superior tone in “child” meaning “easily manipulated” and the antagonistic tone in the word “Neanderthal” meaning “cannot be reasoned with.” Others might make a strong case for just such a difference being portrayed in literature as male-female conflict down through the ages.
For those who take this direction, I would point out that the male-female phenomenon is found throughout the animal kingdom and also the plant kingdom. The consequences are so diverse that it would be difficult to make a case supporting the mythology even if it were, in fact, actual fact. Using such arguments as the above to prove the validity of the mythological consequences of evolution is just as foolish as using cognition as proof for the existence of Heaven.
The mythological consequence of evolution is in the primordial interaction of male and female in one’s self -- a chemical warfare for control of our instinctive reaction to our environment. The masculine monster says hunt down, kill, and tear asunder everything you find until there is nothing left. The female monster says absorb and digest everything within reach and attract whatever is out of reach until it is close enough to engulf. Both strategies are ultimately suicidal, but both make remarkably successful killing machines and both experience an ultimate “gotcha” feeling of satisfaction at the moment life is extinguished from its prey.
I would add something else to this mythology. Let’s say there is a God and that this God, though He/She/It neither protects me nor gives me power over my enemies, does want the best for me. That best might be life beyond this life, but it could just as easily be the end of my life being the end of me. Let us also say that that final decision is not mine to make, nor am I entitled to earn a reprieve or any other consideration based on good behavior. Still, if God does care (as It/She/He does in this mythology of mine) what possible reason could She/He/It have to bring these two monsters together in this one body?
I would point out further mythological consequences. The female monster that would, much like the blob of science fiction, engulf and absorb the entire world has -- thanks to the male monster -- become maternal, caring for others, appreciative of beauty and order, creating them even. The male monster that would seek out, destroy and tear apart anything and everything has -- thanks to the female monster -- become courageous, protecting his friends and family, seeking out new frontiers to explore, and finding new ways to go beyond overwhelming barriers.
The strength of a mythology is in its point, which is solid enough to be commonly perceived but vague enough to fit every person’s personality and situation. Its weakness is the tendency of some to take it too literally and too seriously, thus nullifying any value it might have. In spite of this, I am going to risk offering my response to this mythology. Hopefully, that point is vague enough to be useful.
If we have survived, and perhaps become more deserving of survival, while this continuing struggle between our male nature and our female nature -- two totally alien species -- rages within us, could we be preparing ourselves for even more alien encounters? I admit we do not seem to be doing well at the moment, as we systematically exterminate other species and even large portions of our own species, but at least we seem to have the potential, through our primeval internal struggle, to be prepared for something even more alien than we are.

The Tree of Knowledge
(Becoming Aware of Self)

Consider the mystery
Who are we
A spark in the dark
A broken branch
A tree

Or just
A dark mark
Eternally aglee
A scree
Afraid are we

Are we really we
Or are we me
In reality
We are three
You
Me
And we

Actually
All are me
To me
You are free
And I am bound to be
Me