I'm not sure what you want me to say about this. this neither proves or disproves a literal account. the point in Acts is built from the information provided in the accounts which are ordained by God so are reliable truth.
Ancient Hebrews think differently than us. A man may die without a son and his brother may produce the male offspring by way of proxy. the son is raised in the name of the deceased brother. Westerns don't accept this, we would say something like "but really the son is the living brother's son" but that is not the thinking, the son is the deceased brothers son and what is literal doesn't matter. This also is true for Gentiles being grafted into Isreal. Gentiles, in this case, are not naturally from the root but what is literal doesn't matter and Gentiles can still be of Isreal.
this is similar for non-literal accounts, especially in oral ancient cultures. it doesn't matter what is literal, what matters is what is declared truth. I point out the flaws of looking at it in a literal view (like looking at the DNA of the son) but the flaws don't matter, and if it's literal also doesn't matter. The account is grafted in as truth and so it is truth.
Personally i believe you bring a lot of unnecessary ideas into you reading of the Bible. No wonder you can not take the text as given: example Adam is not actually Adam but it really is humanity.
So instead of God beginning His creation of humanity with one man and woman God actually created the human race with what 1,000 , 10,000, 50,000 100,000 1,000,000. Whats the number i am sure the Bible would address this some where.
So then what do you do with these numbers and how sin entered the world. So everyone created partake of the fruit and that is actually how sinned came into the world or do also not take that as it is given in the bible.
Just like in you opening comment by stating that there are three days of separating and three days of creation and one day of rest.
When actually on the first day God creates light, the second day God created the raqia (firmament, vault, expanse) that separates the waters (above and below) the third day God brings forth or it could be said created the land so creating is seen from day one to day six.
Acts 17 proves that your belief that Adam stands for humanity is not correct.
This is the trap of using human reasoning to twist the meaning of a phrase into something you want it to mean.
The Biblical way to avoid that trap of bringing your ideas into the text. Establish every matter in the mouth of two or three witnesses. If we trust God to fulfill his word, he will follow his own teaching. Therefore, everything that we need to know and learn in the Bible most likely, will be given in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. I say most likely, because i have not read every single account in the Bible and can say that that is absolutely true.
A good example of this is in Job 26:7 I know that that verse is mistranslated where it has been translated to say, the earth hangs on nothing.
There is no where else in the Bible that supports the saying that the earth hangs on nothing. But there are verses that state the earth is set on pillars or has foundations.
So actually Job 26:7
The Hebrew is —
neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh,
The proper translation of which is:
"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon
fastenings."
Which is supported by the Bible where as the earth hangs on nothing is not supported by the Bible.