A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[John Bauer]

There is NO evolutionary explanation for the origin of the life forms upon the earth, unless you bring into this discussion God created life

Biological evolution is about the origin of species—which presupposes life (species are alive).

Origin of life belongs to abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[John Bauer]

I answered that I did not even hint that the natural world was aberrant as it is the Will of God and that is always exactly as it is Willed. It cannot be aberrant (definition of aberrant: not conforming to the accepted standard as the Standard is the Will of God)

And nature cannot be evil categorically as nature can only do the Will of God according to their God given nature

This effectively concedes my point (although you later try to rhetorically override it). The biblical discussion is therefore finished.

However reality is brutal, savage, cruel. That is the reality of East of Eden.

You might have contradicted yourself, if cruelty is evil. So, is it? Or is it righteous?

I can accept brutal and savage, but I would point out that this substitutes human emotional reaction for biblical description. Scripture does not speak of nature the way you are speaking of it. Where does the Bible describe nature as brutal and savage? It doesn’t, which you admitted (“the words are not specifically ‘brutal,’ ‘savage,’ ‘cruel’”). You are importing fallen human sensibilities and then trying to retroactively justify them biblically.

And appealing to Matthew 7:6 is a misfire. To infer anything about the moral nature of predation from a proverb about human discernment would be exegetical malpractice.

It is perhaps our judgement that being trampled and rend is "cruel, savage and brutal" but it is a fair estimation from our point of view.

Then it says something about us. It is not God’s point of view, which is my concern.

 

[EarlyActs]

My view is that while the earth had been submerged and dark and lifeless since the ‘spreading out,’ for the amount of time that would take to get it to its present location from that event. Then AS THE TEXT SAYS, a minimum of light arrived from other location(s), and creation week began for its 7 days. It was otherwise lifeless.

This is explained by God in narrative form to Adam, who preserved it in verbal recitation, AS THE TEXT SAYS, and passed it on. Custody was tight. Joseph, seeing what the Hittites were doing with sound-based markings, not glyphs, developed Hebrew writing, and put Genesis 1-39 down on parchment.

The idea that only theological truth, not truth about history or the universe, is found in Genesis, is unthinkable, not only about the specifics of the text, but as an enduring pattern of Hebrew thought (Isaiah 41). The split idea is a destructive modern idea unreconcilable to Biblical thought. (Schaeffer, TGWIT, 51, 92).

The uplifting of land mass mentioned in both Genesis 1 and the cataclysm by explanation in Ps 104, means that the geologic record is highly disturbed. Fossils are made by such turbulent events, and found as deep as 9000km and on top of the Himalayans.

 

[QVQ]

This effectively concedes my point (although you later try to rhetorically override it). The biblical discussion is therefore finished.

The OP is Death.
If we are going to debate the definition of "cruel" and fallen human sensibillities and the moral nature of predation,
I agree the discussion would be finished as searching the Bible to discover the exact meaning of "cruel" with or without intent whether the meaning is inherent or implied and if it is fallen man's or God's sensibilities and actually, whether we, mere mortals, can discern God's sensibility,.
Wandering down that path does not interest me
I was interested in the original OP "Death"
Death is a Fact

Whether the Bible contains the actual word or only the concept of "cruel" in regard to death is philosophy and religion
The fact of predation is also in the realm of religion except to those who would believe that evolution is absolutely correct, science and Genesis is liturgy. As noted by @EarlyActs
To me, the Bible is absolutely correct, science (corresponding objective reality) and evolution is liturgy in the church of darwin.

Now what about diamonds? And death?

 

[QVQ]

What is Life and Death
Life is a Being encapsulated by a "space suit" (body") that facilitates the being to exist on this planet.
Death is damage to the space suit (body) whereby the being cannot exist on this planet
Death results when:
the space suit runs out of energy (famine)
the space suit is damaged by parasites (pestilence)
the space suit is damaged by another organism (war)
the space suit wears out or is perforated, crushed and otherwise rendered inoperable and cannot repair itself (natural causes)

For the first 2 billion years, life forms:
have infinite energy sources (water minerals, heat/light ) No Famine
there aren't any diseases or parasites No Pestilence
there aren't any predators No War
the ability to divide the original space suit into 2 replicas, Wear and tear, No problem
No Death, space suits are designed to last indefinitely

For the next 1 0r 2 Billion years
There is famine (*sweat of the brow among thorns and thistles). There is pestilence and war. There is wear and tear damaging the space suits without means to repair or replace
Death

According to the Theory of Evolution and that is the OP, what caused the adapted and practically indestructable organism to change the entire design and purpose of the space suit to a fragile and specifically unsuited to this environment design?
And thereby Die
I mean, compared to lithotrophs, my space suit would almost be an argument for my descent from another planet, as unsuitable as my space suit is for surviving in this desert. The design of my space suit does not suggest any evolution, survival of the fittest or natural selection, as it could not be selected by organisms that ate rocks.
There are not only missing links but there incredulous leaps that defy all fact and logic in the Theory of Evolution.

Genesis remarks these facts although not specifically but in general mode, famine being the sweat of the brow amongst thorns and thistles, that was a Change from the environment and space suits pre Adam.
The explanation and the sequence in Genesis is not in dispute. Genesis conforms to the facts.
The OP is Evolutionist of every Stripe, Death?

The uplifting of land mass mentioned in both Genesis 1 and the cataclysm by explanation in Ps 104, means that the geologic record is highly disturbed. Fossils are made by such turbulent events, and found as deep as 9000km and on top of the Himalayans.

Diamonds
Evolution is 1 to 3 billion years to form "natural" diamond
Man forms diamonds in 3 to 4 weeks.
Formation of Diamonds is initial conditions and process. In other words, Minerals/chemicals (intitial conditions) and turbulence (process)
Now diamonds exist, therefore initial conditions and process existed that formed diamonds
However the time could be in a fraction of a nanosecond within the 6 days of creation
Those "billions of years" Always the "billions of years"

 

[John Bauer]

If we are going to debate the definition of "cruel" …

Like you, I also have no interest in debating the definition of “cruel.”

My only point is that you describe the natural world in moralized language that Scripture doesn’t use—brutal, savage, cruel—a fact which I find interesting and worth highlighting. I also found it interesting that you called it cruel immediately after claiming that “nature cannot be evil.” If cruelty is evil, and if nature is cruel, then you have contradicted yourself. A coherent approach must either drop the moral language or accept the moral conclusion; keeping both is logically untenable.

Wandering down that path does not interest me. I was interested in the [opening post on] "death." Death is a fact.

Yes, physical death is a fact—and it has an evolutionary explanation, as I demonstrated (2025, Dec 4). And two further points came out of our discussion that are worth stating clearly: nutrient recycling and microbial runaway. In the first case, death ensures that essential nutrients and minerals (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, etc.) are returned to the biosphere as a virtually unlimited supply. In the second case, death prevents exponential biomass accumulation equaling the mass of the planet within days. Mortality is the structural condition that allows the biosphere to function—chemically, ecologically, and physically.

Whether the Bible contains the actual word "cruel" or only the concept in regard to death is philosophy and religion.

I guess. But in my estimation, it’s a matter of textual translation and interpretation, which is replicable and verifiable.

The fact of predation is also in the realm of religion except to those who would believe that evolution [and science are] absolutely correct and Genesis is liturgy, as noted by @EarlyActs

I don’t know who he could’ve possibly been talking about. People like me believe Genesis 1 is liturgical, but deny that evolution and science are absolutely correct. People like Richard Dawkins believe evolution and science are absolutely correct, but deny that Genesis 1 is liturgical.

So, who was he talking about?

I have no idea.

To me, the Bible is absolutely correct, science (corresponding objective reality) and evolution is liturgy in the church of Darwin.

Okay.

Life is a being encapsulated by a "space suit" (body) that facilitates the being to exist on this planet.

First, that is dualism, not biology. Are we discussing biology or metaphysics? Because you cannot refute evolutionary biology using premises that evolutionary biology doesn’t even share.

Second, if a bacterium in the ocean is the “space suit,” what is the being that occupies it?

For the first two billion years, lifeforms have infinite energy sources … no diseases or parasites … no predators … the ability to divide the original “space suit” into two replicas … and no death …

Your prehistoric timeline is factually wrong at almost every point. For example, there were diseases and parasites for the first two billion years—because viruses, bacteriophages, and microbial parasitism are billions of years old.

According to the theory of evolution … what caused the adapted and practically indestructable organism to change the entire design and purpose of the space suit to a fragile and specifically unsuited to this environment design? And thereby die?

Your question cannot be answered because it is built on a false premise, that early life was perfect, immortal, and indestructible, while modern life is worse, fragile, and maladapted. Both claims are demonstrably false.

I mean, compared to lithotrophs, my space suit would almost be an argument for my descent from another planet, as unsuitable as my space suit is for surviving in this desert. The design of my space suit does not suggest any evolution, survival of the fittest or natural selection, as it could not be selected by organisms that ate rocks.

How long have you been alive? Evolution doesn’t happen on that timescale—or to individuals.

There are not only missing links …

That is about the fossil record, not the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is empirically tested in genetics, developmental biology, molecular phylogenetics, and observed speciation—not by whether every transitional organism happened to fossilize.

… but there incredulous leaps that defy all fact and logic in the theory of evolution.

No, there are not. The “incredulous leaps that defy all fact and logic” belong to crude and inaccurate caricatures of the theory, as you demonstrate every time you talk about evolution being goal-oriented.

 

[QVQ]

Yes, physical death is a fact—and it has an evolutionary explanation, as I demonstrated (2025, Dec 4). And two further points came out of our discussion that are worth stating clearly: nutrient recycling and microbial runaway. In the first case, death ensures that essential nutrients and minerals (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, etc.) are returned to the biosphere as a virtually unlimited supply. In the second case, death prevents exponential biomass accumulation equaling the mass of the planet within days. Mortality is the structural condition that allows the biosphere to function—chemically, ecologically, and physically.

The Fossil Record indicates the early life forms produced organic garbage
The Fossil Record indicates that garbage still exists in compact form.
The Fossil record indicates that the amount of garbage was Huge
So yes, no death, huge biomass and lots of black gold
The evidence indicates exponential biolmass accumulation equaling 71 trillion gallons of oil in known reserves.
That oil is the sewage and garbage of ancient life forms

Your prehistoric timeline is factually wrong at almost every point. For example, there were diseases and parasites for the first two billion years—because viruses, bacteriophages, and microbial parasitism are billions of years old.

The prehistoric timeline is a joke.
Some evolutionist state that microbial parasites evolved before the dirt eater microbes (other cells)
Virus that inhabit other cells as parasites evolved before the other cells?
What did said virus eat before their food evolved?

How long have you been alive? Evolution doesn’t happen on that timescale—or to individuals.{end quote}[/COLOR]

My body has supposedly been evolving for billions of years. The environment where this particular model of body could exist without technological envelope is very small. The habitat of most larger life forms is very limited and within their very limited ranges, they are extremely vulnerable to predation disease and famine.

 

[JesusFan]

Biological evolution is about the origin of species—which presupposes life (species are alive).

Origin of life belongs to abiogenesis, not evolution.

So how would naturalist evolutionist state life originated form on Earth then? How would life come from non life?

 

[John Bauer]

The fossil record indicates that early life forms produced organic garbage. … The evidence indicates “exponential biomass accumulation” equaling 71 trillion gallons of oil in known reserves. That oil is the sewage and garbage of ancient life forms.

If your intent was to support what I said … well, mission accomplished. One result of death preventing exponential biomass accumulation is … [drumroll] … lots of organic waste. That is precisely the nutrient recycling to which I was referring, but it’s interrupted in these cases by burial, wherein the original biomass is partially preserved as kerogen, which eventually breaks down into liquid petroleum.

But that’s only if you accept the biogenic petroleum theory, which is the consensus view. As for me, I do not.

The prehistoric timeline is a joke.

You have yet to demonstrate that—which is fine. If you’re content to make unsupported assertions, I am okay with that. It makes my side of the argument appear more credible, which I appreciate.

Some evolutionists state that microbial parasites evolved before the dirt eater microbes (other cells). Virus that inhabit other cells as parasites evolved before the other cells? What did said virus eat before their food evolved?

I am not aware of any evolutionary scientists who state that parasites (e.g., phages and viruses) evolved before their microbial prey, so I will need you to point me to an actual source—name, reference, or cited quotation. If “some evolutionists” truly teach this, you should be able to identify who or where. Otherwise, the premise remains unsupported.

If you attempt to support your claim, you’re going to discover that evolutionary scientists don’t make claims like that. In fact, you will find they say the opposite—that viruses evolved from cellular life, for example, or that viruses don’t have any metabolism and don’t “eat” at all. (Viruses are just mobile packets of genetic material wrapped in a protein shell. They do not “eat” anything; they hijack cellular machinery to replicate.)

What you described is a caricature that badly misunderstands evolution (and biology). You’re right, it’s a joke and deserves to be dismissed—but doing so leaves evolution untouched because it doesn’t make those claims.

My body has supposedly been evolving for billions of years.

Who says that? Not evolutionists.

The environment where this particular model of body could exist without technological envelope is very small.

That is true of basically any species. Camels cannot survive tundra. Jellyfish cannot survive forests. How is that supposed to refute evolution? A species is never adapted to everywhere. It is adapted to the selective pressures that shaped its lineage.

And yes, humans overcame those limits through culture and technology—which are themselves evolutionary adaptations. Our evolutionary pathway is not just physiological; it is also behavioral and cognitive. We are a niche-constructing species. Instead of waiting for our bodies to change over thousands of generations, we modify our environments and develop tools that allow us to thrive far beyond the climate range to which our physiology alone is suited.

 

[John Bauer]

So how would naturalist evolutionist state life originated form on Earth then? How would life come from non-life?

That is exactly the point, isn’t it? An evolutionist wouldn’t try to account for life arising from non-life—because that’s not an evolution problem. If you were to ask an evolutionist that question, he would direct you to an origin-of-life researcher, perhaps a biophysical chemist, or geochemist, or astrobiologist (because abiogenesis is now mostly pursued within prebiotic chemistry and astrobiology programs). The origin of life would have followed chemical pathways, not biological ones.

An interesting fact is that organic molecules are detected throughout interstellar space, so the chemical precursors to life must arise spontaneously under a wide range of physical conditions. Amino acids, nucleobase analogues, sugars, and long-chain hydrocarbons have all been identified far beyond Earth.

Your question is outside the jurisdictional competence of evolutionary biology. It is like wondering why carbon is tetravalent and looking to population genetics for an answer. Wrong field, wrong tools.

 

[QVQ]

The points you raise in the answer are round and round.
I demonstrate that enormous biomasses existed (how many bacteria in a gallon of oil) and that decomposers, in fact any organism who feasted on organic matter, a possibly necessary precursor to predation, is totally absent.
And, yes evolutionist do say that "my" body as in generic human form is the result of billions of years of evolution.

You have yet to demonstrate that—which is fine. If you’re content to make unsupported assertions, I am okay with that. It makes my side of the argument appear more credible, which I appreciate.

A Brief History of Time or a Time of Brief History
Diamonds and Death
Forms and Formation
Initial Condition and Process
Diamond
Theory
Evolution: Initial Condition: carbon, Process: heat, pressure Time billions of years
Actual Scientific
Man lab: Initial Condition: carbon Process: heat pressure Time 3 or 4 weeks
Man lab: Initial Condition: chemical soup Process: pressure Time 5 minutes
Man lab Initial Condition: carbon Process: sheer force Time 0 minutes

Chins, genetics altering chin size, shape
Theory
Evolution monkey to man 300,000 years
Actual Scientific
Hapsburg 200 years

There are more examples where it does not and probably did not take multipe billion years for an intiatal condition to process a form.

The theory of evolution concerns changes in heritable traits across populations over time—genes, anatomy, physiology, morphology (i.e., biology). It does not prescribe cultural practices or specific technologies. Killing animals, weaving baskets, and making clothing belong to culture, not genetics

And yes, humans overcame those limits through culture and technology—which are themselves evolutionary adaptations. Our evolutionary pathway is not just physiological; it is also behavioral and cognitive. We are a niche-constructing species. Instead of waiting for our bodies to change over thousands of generations, we modify our environments and develop tools that allow us to thrive far beyond the climate range to which our physiology alone is suited.

Those two posts are contradictory.
Niche constructing species, not waiting for our bodies to change over thousands of generations, or until a very warm place freezes over.

 

[makesends]

prism said:
So, [since you are] a Christian who accepts evolution, would that be an evolved Adam? And, if evolved, how did death come about before Adam's transgression? Which Adam or ape did God breathe into, which became a living soul in the image of God?

1. It is incoherent to speak of an "evolved Adam" because populations evolve, not individuals

That comes across a little harsh. "Evolved Adam" can easily refer to the individual by the name, 'Adam', who is a product of many evolutionary generations.

While I can see death coming about before Adam's transgression as non-problematic, I can't help but wonder, as @prism didn't quite say: At which point in the evolution toward the Human Species (or whatever Adam was), did Adam's ancestors become morally responsible and/or 'made in the image of God'? Was there some big jump from Adam's father, a mere advanced animal, to Adam, a moral animal possessing of conscience and capable of sin?

I have thought you consider Adam and Eve as genuine individuals, more than allegorical or symbolically representative of millenia of evolutionary progression. I don't see how you reconcile evolutionary progression with God breathing life into Adam, and making Eve from his rib.

 

[JesusFan]

That is exactly the point, isn’t it? An evolutionist wouldn’t try to account for life arising from non-life—because that’s not an evolution problem. If you were to ask an evolutionist that question, he would direct you to an origin-of-life researcher, perhaps a biophysical chemist, or geochemist, or astrobiologist (because abiogenesis is now mostly pursued within prebiotic chemistry and astrobiology programs). The origin of life would have followed chemical pathways, not biological ones.

An interesting fact is that organic molecules are detected throughout interstellar space, so the chemical precursors to life must arise spontaneously under a wide range of physical conditions. Amino acids, nucleobase analogues, sugars, and long-chain hydrocarbons have all been identified far beyond Earth.

Your question is outside the jurisdictional competence of evolutionary biology. It is like wondering why carbon is tetravalent and looking to population genetics for an answer. Wrong field, wrong tools.

If one does not have a world view that allows for God as supreme Creator, and just a naturalist mindset, there cannot ever be found any reason why and how life ever started

 

[QVQ]

If one does not have a world view that allows for God as supreme Creator, and just a naturalist mindset, there cannot ever be found any reason why and how life ever started

A person can affirm or deny that God created the world (initial condition)
The question is what happened then? (process)
Creation: Initial Condition
Process:
1) The Atheist Deny God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process.
2) The Theistic Evolutionist Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process
3) The Sola Scriptura Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Genesis as the process

Creation is the intial condition. Evolution and Genesis are processes thereafter.
Two separate questions, 1) Who created it? 2) How was it created?

 

[EarlyActs]

A person can affirm or deny that God created the world (initial condition)
The question is what happened then? (process)
Creation: Initial Condition
Process:
1) The Atheist Deny God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process.
2) The Theistic Evolutionist Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process
3) The Sola Scriptura Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Genesis as the process

Creation is the intial condition. Evolution and Genesis are processes thereafter.
Two separate questions, 1) Who created it? 2) How was it created?

3A (mine) is that there was a lifeless period between the ‘spreading out’ event (including earth in a submerged stage) and creation week.

This view comes from work done in its original languages. If you only operate in English, you will prob not see these details. Hopefully Sola Sciptura does not mean Sola-English-Scriptura.

 

[CrowCross]

did Adam's ancestors become morally responsible and/or 'made in the image of God'? Was there some big jump from Adam's father, a mere advanced animal, to Adam, a moral animal possessing of conscience and capable of sin?

This is the part the theo-evos always avoid...run from.

The bible does a very good job at explaining why we sin....the theo-evo bible, not so much.

 

[EarlyActs]

A person can affirm or deny that God created the world (initial condition)
The question is what happened then? (process)
Creation: Initial Condition
Process:
1) The Atheist Deny God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process.
2) The Theistic Evolutionist Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Evolution as the process
3) The Sola Scriptura Affirm God as Creator and Affirm Genesis as the process

Creation is the intial condition. Evolution and Genesis are processes thereafter.
Two separate questions, 1) Who created it? 2) How was it created?

3A (mine) is that there was a lifeless period between the ‘spreading out’ event (including earth in a submerged stage) and creation week.

This view comes from work done in its original languages. If you only operate in English, you will prob not see these details. Hopefully Sola Sciptura does not mean Sola-English-Scriptura.

And there may be the reason for physical death. The physical death is impending for all humans as a result —i.e. we are dying; entropy is having its way with our bodies. It is unavoidable even for the redeemed, once corrupted.

The idea of a ‘day’ for an event like this is a time or a time of consequence. It is not a drastic difference between spirit and body in the text or other Hebrew mindset.

Notice for ex., that merely by starting respiratory function the text says God put his life in the man.

That’s why explanations that heighten a difference in kinds of death are suspect. It breaks the whole man integrity found in so many places in Scripture.

Genesis does not have a protracted period of biological life without the soul. That is merely human theory at odds with the lifelessness of earth before creation week, which is the way of the text.

The view of Genesis defeats an idea of ‘life’ before humanity by referring to a lifeless period (between spreading out and creation week). Naturalistic modern science charges the materials of the universe with an inherent biological life, and when convenient, says that 150MY can go by when that life-force sits in neutral. Totally made up.

 

[EarlyActs]

3A (mine) is that there was a lifeless period between the ‘spreading out’ event (including earth in a submerged stage) and creation week.

This view comes from work done in its original languages. If you only operate in English, you will prob not see these details. Hopefully Sola Sciptura does not mean Sola-English-Scriptura.


The idea of a ‘day’ for an event like this is a time or a time of consequence. It is not a drastic difference between spirit and body in the text or other Hebrew mindset.

Notice for ex., that merely by starting respiratory function the text says God put his life in the man.

That’s why explanations that heighten a difference in kinds of death are suspect. It breaks the whole man integrity found in so many places in Scripture.

Genesis does not have a protracted period of biological life without the soul. That is merely human theory at odds with the lifelessness of earth before creation week, which is the way of the text.

The view of Genesis defeats an idea of ‘life’ before humanity by referring to a lifeless period (between spreading out and creation week). Naturalistic modern science charges the materials of the universe with an inherent biological life, and when convenient, says that 150MY can go by when that life-force sits in neutral. Totally made up.

As an example of wholistic Hebraic thought, Rabbi Prager, during Happiness Hour on his radio program, used to say 'Being in a good mood for other's sake is like brushing your teeth or using deodorant, for other's sake.'

 

[EarlyActs]

I was recently told by Creation Research Society that some research I was doing was 'hashing over old ground.' So I took two terms to the search bar at CreationWiki to see what what happen.

The two were essential to my view. Sirius because of its marking the beginning of a daily cycle in many cultures (Boorstin, DISCOVERERS), and Cassuto, the name of the rabbi whose text work shut down the destructive German idea of JEDP (4 sources of the books of Moses).

On Sirius there was only one item that came up, a discussion about how quickly a star can be classed as a white dwarf. It had nothing to do with marking Day 1 light as starlight's arrival, in explanation of what kind of light was on Day 1.

On Cassuto, the discussion was connected to 'Biblical science foreknowledge'--those texts where we find lines that translate showing an unusually modern view of a science, for ex., Isaiah's 'the earth is suspended on nothing.'. My notes on Cassuto are that he 'mapped' how verbal recitation was passed down in a 4 point format, in his book FROM ADAM TO NOAH.

So once again, I find that the reasoning of some creationists is unnecessarily rote or trite or glib, and believe that they should have a robust use of logic in their toolcase for defending it.

 

[John Bauer]

That comes across a little harsh.

I don’t know how to take that value judgment because I don’t know what harsh means in this context.

“Evolved Adam” can easily refer to the individual by the name Adam, who is a product of many evolutionary generations.

I think part of the difficulty here is simply how the language is functioning. I am trying to be careful about this because the theory of evolution is often misunderstood by so many creationists (because it was misrepresented to them by their teachers). When someone reduces population-level processes to individual ontology, a category mistake is introduced that ends up confusing the discussion.

Many sincere objections to evolution stem not from the scientific theory in its own terms but from a caricature thereof. If our objections and critiques find no traction when dealing with evolution under its own terms, then we may have already lost the core of the argument—and, more importantly, we risk building our understanding on a foundation that isn't true.

Properly speaking, Adam is a human, and it is humans that are the product of “many evolutionary generations.” If Adam has parents in this scenario, then he is the product of a single generation, not many—his parents. (And if the phrase “evolved Adam” is meant as shorthand for that, then the shorthand obscures more than it clarifies, which is why I push back on that wording.)

While I can see death coming about before Adam's transgression as non-problematic, I can't help but wonder: At which point in the evolution toward the human species (or whatever Adam was) did Adam's ancestors become morally responsible and/or “made in the image of God”? Was there some big jump from Adam's father, a mere advanced animal, to Adam, a moral animal possessing of conscience and capable of sin?

I would say that you are asking two different questions. In my view, moral cognition developed among anatomically modern humans less than 100,000 years ago, and man was made in the image of God around 6,000 years ago, which is also when God entered into the covenant relationship with mankind that defines sin.

And describing Adam’s father as “a mere advanced animal” sounds dehumanizing, as if he was a different species. But we are talking about 6,000 years ago. Why would he be any less human than Adam? At that time, Homo sapiens were the only extant humans.

I have thought you consider Adam and Eve as genuine individuals, more than allegorical or symbolically representative of millennia of evolutionary progression.

Correct.

I don't see how you reconcile evolutionary progression with God breathing life into Adam, and making Eve from his rib.

Well, that is covenantal language, which is meaningless apart from a covenant relationship. Humans evolved over a few hundred thousand years, and then roughly 6,000 years ago God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind, inaugurated with Adam as our federal head. Prior to that, no covenant relationship existed. So, I would say that @CrowCross is right, “The Bible does a very good job at explaining why we sin”—which is exactly the same Bible that this evolutionary creationist uses.