Just as Adam and Eve were made from scratch for the task of reproducing all of mankind. Just as it reads.
The biologists will shred the scientific errors of your post so I'm fine fielding the task of dealing with your errors from the scriptures.
1) No. The Bible says NOTHING to indicate that Adam and Eve were "made from scratch". You have confused TRADITIONS about the Bible with what the Bible actually says.
2) Genesis 2:7 says that Adam's ULTIMATE origin (as with all of the animals, which is stated in other passages) was in "the dust of the ground". The text says nothing about the PROXIMATE origins of mankind.
Genesis 2:7 describes abiogenesis: life from non-living ingredients (the soil). [Incidentally, "the dust of the ground" and "primordial soup" only differ in that "dust of the ground" doesn't happen to mention that water was also involved as an ingredient in living things. But even plenty of rocks and minerals have water in them, often even expressed in their chemical formula as part of the notation. Anyway, I always find it humorous that many of my Christian brethren fear "primordial soup" but not "dust of the ground". So I tell them, "Just take the Bible's dust of the ground, add some water, and stir. Then you have primordial soup, ready to be used as an ingredients source for all life.]
3) Genesis 2:7 describes the ultimate source (dust of the ground, that is, the basic chemical elements) and the final end product (humans) but it doesn't tell us how many and the nature of the intermediate steps and processes. Tradition tells you that HADAM was made "from scratch" but that is an assumption that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", a popular logical fallacy. So Genesis 2:7 not only explicitly describes abiogenesis, it certainly allows for evolutionary processes.
4) I've always enjoyed telling students that when someone defends their view with "Just as the text reads", pay special attention because they are most likely adding things that the text does NOT "read". The phrase usually implies, "OK, I'm going to insert my favorite tradition here, and to help it along I will pretend that it is 'obviously' to be found within the text, even though it isn't."
Now I'm trying to be hard on you with #4. I made that same mistake for MANY years. I simply adopted the cherished traditions of my church and peers. It is SO EASY to do that we often fail to realize that we are doing it! (Even while we declare proudly, "Sola scriptura!") Indeed, I'm ashamed to admit that I let tradition dictate much of my hermeneutics for a very long time. Now I almost always remind myself before attempting exegesis of a text, "What does the text ACTUALLY say and what traditions have I always inserted here?"
I have been personally guilty of inserting my favorite traditions into my interpretation of the Biblical text. So join the club! It is a foible of the human condition. And it takes real work to "purify" our bible study methods to where we push aside our man-made traditions ABOUT the Bible and allow it to speak for itself.
.
