The mark on Evolution,
Or so says this woman
Discover interviewed
Last month, professor
Woman who rides
Her bike everywhere
Says we’re thinking too
Small – that is, too few.
Ignoring the role single
Celled creatures, bacteria
Amoeba and the like,
Play in the progression
Of the big species
That we care about.
She says we don’t do
It on our own, our big
chromosomes spontaneously
Mutating traits to thrive.
We devour the small
Things whole. Incorporate
Entire genomes. Clams
For example that catch
Algae in one of their bi-
Valves but don’t digest
The Green colonies,
Don’t break them down
For energy once and
Have to hunt again
Tomorrow, no, the clams
Just learned to turn
Their shells translucent
So the algae sit there
In the clam-gut forever
And photosynthesize.
Humans are born with
Millions of bacteria in
Our human-guts all
Pre-programmed to
Break down food for
Us, too. We use them
To make our energy
So our DNA never had
To figure out how
On its own. She’s not
Calling Darwin and Mendel
Straight white men,
This professor, she
Hasn’t the slightest
Idea who they fucked,
But doesn’t it seem
Fitting that these fellows
Gave the credit all
To the big beasts
And their DNA full
Of eureka mutations
To solve it all, all
There is to survival,
When in fact maybe
We just got good
At consuming things
And calling them,
Their work, our own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, I also forgot!
ReplyDeleteWith the Darwin/Mendel section, I do like how this woman professor is set up against them. You never name her, like her name is too small for us to know, like how we don't know the names of the bacteria in our stomach. And you have so many sets of big vs small: algae to the clam, stomach bacteria to stomach/human, amoebas to big species, woman scientist to Darwin/Mendel.
I like how the idea of small things never getting the credit can be worked on several levels here, but I feel like the woman scientist vs Darwin and Mendel shrouds the other strains? Maybe it's in placement?
(sorry had a bad typo i wanted to fix. read this comment first.)
ReplyDeleteDinah, I had a very long comment for you and then my computer lost its internet connection. I will try to remember...
I like how you use shorter lines because it fits with the idea of big things being made up of smaller things that do all the work. I love the enjambment, especially here:
"To solve it all, all/There is to survival,"
I was confused in the Darwin/Mendel section. I didn't follow the connection of how their credit to "big beasts" connects with their sexuality, but I have the sense I am missing something really obvious, like a penis reference? haha. I'm not sure what you mean by big beasts or all the things you want it to mean.
Even though I may be too dense for the Darwin/Mendel part, maybe consider continuing the "we" scope? It drops away when you reference the professor not calling Darwin/Mendel straight men, etc. I guess I want the "we"/us to stay closer to these forgetting-what-they-have-in-their-guts (photosynthesis! life!) clams. That's so incredible.
I really like the cadence of this. It really rolls along nicely and pulls the reader through it at a nice clip. I also love the lines "the big species that we care about" that phrase really rooted me in the mindset of the poem.
ReplyDeleteI also love the title, "We're Missing" -- to me it reads that you could be part of we as the whole of humanity writ large and we humans are missing the point of the little things, or you could be part of the we that are missing from the documents of history wondering where you are listed so you can see your due credit given.
One point that messed me up a bit was the capitalization at the beginning of each line. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but something about the third line starting with a proper noun publication coupled with the fact that the Discover line already reads a bit haltingly because of the professor woman follow-up made the beginning of the poem very tough for me. I had to restart a few times before getting the rhythm going. I don't know if it is worth changing just for an easier entry into the poem (or maybe I'm alone in this capitalization concern).