Genesis Critique

I would like to address a few subjects concerning Genesis of the Bible. Firstly, whoever wrote Genesis was obviously anthropocentric. Man was supposedly created by God in God's image (1.26). Why would man be in God's image, when we know that humans have evolved for long periods of time due to adaptation to environmental conditions? Further, mankind is given dominion over the "wild animals of the earth" (1.26). What makes man any less wild than the animals that were called so? The only logical answer is that whoever wrote Genesis thought highly of mankind over any other species. On the same note, no plants or herbs could grow in the Earth before it was tilled, suggesting that agricultural practices of mankind were needed for plants to grow (2.5). Humans in the grand scheme of ecosystems are not all that important. Needless to say, we are not necessary for the ecosystem, except to fix all of the problems that we have created by imposing our dominion over nature. Genesis only seems to try to justify our overuse of resources.
The second subject I would like to address is the idea that women were made from men (2.22). Supposedly Adam was put to sleep and one of his ribs was used to create a woman. This tries to explain the difference in bone structure between men and women, which is entirely false. The extra rib is due to evolution especially for child bearing. Another tenet of Genesis is that women are ruled by men (3.16). In evolution, feminism came first long before masculinity existed. Consider the fact that in mitosis replicated cells are called daughter cells. A second example is that female aphids reproduce clonaly in the summer, called parthenogenesis. The offspring are all female, which are born with viable ovaries as well. Lastly, childbirth in mammals is painful for all species, not just humans. However, only humans are addressed because of the original anthropocentric bias to Genesis. The reasoning for women being suboordinate to men in the Bible was probably driven by the church in order to retain power in a patriarchal society in the Middle Ages and Renaisance Period.
The third subject I would like to address is the idea of original sin. Original sin revolves around the exile of the first people from the Garden of Eden because of the transgression against the will of God (3). Why create a tree of knowledge of good and evil if people cannot use it? I cannot think of a worse argument for this religion than the idea of ignorance is bliss. According to Genesis then, pain and toil are the prices of knowledge. Again, Genesis tries to explain the ways of the world by blaming snakes for causing the exile from Eden since they lack legs (3.14). Snakes have vestigial legs in their skeleton however, suggesting that evolution was the most likely causal agent. Lastly, The Garden of Eden was located according to Genesis somewhere in Southern Iraq. What about the rest of the world? Only four rivers in the middle East are described. Nothing is mentioned about the Americas because no one knew about those areas yet. If there was a God, then wouldn't the authors of Genesis be a little more worldly, especially since clergy were supposed to be able to communicate with Him? The idea of original sin and a Garden of Eden makes me angry, because no such place ever existed. Why spread lies and try to instill hope for a place that does not exist?