We've had some time to cool down. So, let me pose a few questions to the evolutionists:
At what point did humanity start? If we evolved from other forms of life when was the cut off that humans became, well, human? (Since we can clearly see from scripture that a human is a being different and above that of an animal.)
Was Adam a homosapien? Were his parents not humans but then he tipped the scales and thus was the first human? Did other humanoids live in the garden before Adam? Could the not-fully-humans sin? Or did they live sinless before the first sin with Eve?
Are Adam's parent's (he must have biological parents if he evolved) delt with like animals in concern to questions of salvation?
Was Eve indeed formed from Adam's rib or is that a metaphor? What did Adam have that made him human, the first human, that the beings before him did not have?
According to Scripture, humanity and animals share qualities that make them both made from the dust of the earth. The difference is "God breathed" directly into us. We received the Image as part of our nature, and that's when this animal body became "human."
Everything else is mere vain speculation. The church fathers believed that Adam and Eve were taken in their "innocence" and "childish" times, into the Paradise of Joy. Whether other humanoids lived at the time or not doesn't matter. Maybe Adam and Eve represented two people who can bring back hope that all other humanity can share, or maybe a group of humans were in Paradise, but as soon as one falls, all falls. Whatever the case may be, they were given some commandment, and they disobeyed it, seeking after things they were not ready to have yet in their immaturity.
Now, if the first 300 years worth of Church fathers can believe that humanity can copulate with angels, then I don't see the problem with thinking that perhaps Adam and Eve's children did not copulate with each other to give forth the offspring there is today. The question is about salvation. What is necessary for our salvation? If we understand that there was a Fall, and that Christ came to redeem us from the Fall and even more now (to receive what Adam and Eve were not ready to receive at the time), then for sure everything else seems superfluous. I understand the importance of the Fall in the theology of the Church, and I understand the importance of genealogy, all of which I feel can still be kept without violating the science of evolution. Adam and Eve could be the prime example of humanity God chose, but he blew it.
Now, your final question: the rib. I believe this was metaphor. I see a pattern that Church Fathers find this part of the story a prophecy or a shadow to the formation of the Church out of the side of Christ at the Cross (when the Centurion stabbed Christ, and water and blood gushed into the floor, that's when the Church was born). This metaphor is a very powerful example of seeing the New Testament in the Old, an important part of Christian teaching when looking at the OT, and it can't be done unless one really believes in an Alexandrian exegetical way of looking at the OT, rather than the mere face value of it, which borders on "letter of the law" ideas rather than the "spirit of the law." Now, I'm not going to stand and pretend the Church fathers didn't take this particular part of the story literally (although I have reservations about the word "rib" because the original verse seems to just say "side"), but I'm going to contend they had no other reason not to at the time, not because it was a necessary dogma to believe in. But the spirit of this story was Christ and the Church, and that's what matters. That's what makes this story "true" in that deep spiritual sense.
I really like this quote by CS Lewis I read off of Dr. Francis Collin's book:
Here's a quote I read from Francis Collin's book, "The Language of God". I must admit though, I haven't read C.S. Lewis' book where he got this from:
For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. he gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say "I" and "me," which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.... We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods.... They wanted some corner in this universe of which they could say to God, "This is our business, not yours." But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, the the question is of no consequence. (C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain, 68-71)
In some way, C.S. Lewis preserves the idea of "The Fall." I think this is a very relevant quote, and something that aided me in my belief.
When the Church fathers were fighting against the Apollinarian heresy, they contended with Apollinarius that he did not allow salvation for humanity, rather salvation only for the animals. Food for thought.