Mark A Noll & David N Livingstone, BB Warfield - Evolution, Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids MI, 2000):
Why should the evolutionist insist that the ascent to man must have been accomplished by the blind action of natural forces to the exclusion of all oversight and direction of a higher power? Why should the biblicist assert that the creation of man by the divine fiat must have been immediate in such a sense as to exclude all process, all interaction of natural forces? It does not appear that either is, on the basis of its own data, justified in such an extremity of position.
The Manner and Time of Man’s Origin (p213)
Warfield might have other useful things to say, but it’s hard to tell when he was unaware of Genealogical Adam. He rightly rejects the older Pre-adamite views for their innate racism. And that makes him unsupportive for the idea of Adam as a late arrival in the human race (I think he’d come on board with GA, but that speculation doesn’t help the book!). The above quote begins with a denial of the evolutionary extreme that man created himself, rather than God doing so … so he’s not a co-creationist!
He insists on an historical Adam and Eve because of Adam’s representative nature for us (as our first parent) rather than because there must be “genetic” inheritance of sin.
In one essay he describes Adam and Eve possible “sports” - clearly implying the acceptance of evolutionary origins. But he also requires the admission of supernatural involvement (in an earlier piece) if the human soul be deemed immaterial, and also for the creation of Eve because of its specific description - he is unhappy with figurative exegesis on this, though aware of it.
So his constant beliefs seem to be: Real Adam and Eve as our common ancestors. OK for Adam and Eve to arrive by evolultion. BUT supernatural endowment, however, required (and only really opposed on basis of atheistic materialism).
If quotes on any of those individual points might help, let me know and I’ll fish them out.