I don't see anything in Genesis that would lead me to believe so. In fact, the opposite is true.
It's fairly obvious that the book of Genesis is metaphorical, not literal.
Or, perhaps, such "obviousness" is based on your [wrong] presumptions?
Not only is there the issue of bad results from inbreeding...
So, how does evolution get past this problem, much less to the first male/female pair?
By the way, inbreeding doesn't always produce bad results. Just some of the time.
Genesis 2: says how God waved His hands (or whatever) and all living things appeared. At some point early in Gen:2, He made Adam, and towards the end, He made Eve by cloning her from a rib. Details on exactly how a female was cloned from a male are severely lacking. Genesis 3: says how Adam and Eve listened to a talking snake and ate some fruit. There is no mention of them having children until Genesis 4, where they had two sons. At the time the older son was exiled for killing the younger son: Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear! [4:14] Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me." And at that time, any discerning reader is left to wonder, exactly whom is Cain afraid of? The only other two existing people, his parents, who he's never going to see again anyway? And where on earth did his wife come from, since Adam and Eve had no daughters and apparently would not have any until decades later (decades after Eve would have undergone menopause)?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or any kind of specialized knowledge to see that the story of Genesis does not have internal consistency and is, in fact, contradictory to our observations of the world.
Or, perhaps, such "obviousness" is based on your [wrong] presumptions?
Given that it takes no more than a critical reading of Genesis to recognize its pretty obvious internal inconsistencies, there is really no presumption to make. Genesis as a literal account of anything makes no sense. Genesis only makes sense as a metaphor.
So, how does evolution get past this problem, much less to the first male/female pair?
By the way, inbreeding doesn't always produce bad results. Just some of the time.
There is no "first male/female pair." Populations, not individuals, evolve. The bad results resulting from inbreeding are cumulative. The Egyptian pharaohs and European royalty were both examples of that.