And rationally, doesn't it make the eve part fully deniable, regarding her origin?
Not necessarily. If the story is taken literally, it would only necessitate a one-shot miracle to create Eve. I don't see how any scientific evidence could rule it out.
That being said, I don't think the Eve story is meant to be taken literally. However, I don't see how it makes any theological difference whether it is literal or not.
BTW, aren't we getting off track here? I thought we were talking about whether evolution rules out sin.
Scientific evidence doesn't rule out I.D. either...but that doesn't lessen the protest against it.
In short, if Adam was created as the first man, along w/ Eve, then sin has an entry point. But if the 'evidence' states that they both 'evolved' together and just 'appeared' then the how of how they got here is no more valid that the hopi creation story.
This means sin as a concept is associated w/ biblical myths and is not a bon fide concept. That is how evolution taken as is 'rules out' sin...(and by extension, rules out the reason'd'etre for the Reconciler)