I would say this is uncontentious. The Adam of Genesis 1 and early Genesis 2, and the Adam of later Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 must be different. So God created Adam in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. But the Adam of late Genesis 2-3 is clearly a single man not a plural them nor gender neutral/intersex him. So Adam is both a word for "humankind", and is the name of a person. I see Adam filling the role in Hebrew that 'man' does in English - meaning both a singular male person and a collective noun representing the entire human race. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest a generous gap in time between the first Adam that represents all of humankind, and the singular Adam who eats the fruit. I'd go further and say perhaps there was a poetic reason the first man was called Man. Perhaps there was no single historic individual who ate the fruit but rather Man (as a collective) ate the fruit.