This is an answer to question one:
Are there any options for duality and evolution other than the ones I have mentioned?
Although evolution in the contemporary scientific project lacks 'purpose'; Aristotle when he discussed evolution in both Physics, and Metaphysics dismissed evolutionary theory as incomplete as he regarded this as a flaw; one can regard Hegels Philosophy as addressing this (in vague and crude terms) the universe attains increasing self-awareness. In this context, the 'gradient of evolution makes sense'.
Hegel answers the problem of duality here by taking it all the way back to the origin: where being and non-being are different but also identical.
The following is a discussion of 'evolution' of life in Aristotles Physics:
In section II.4: Is chance also a cause? some opinions on this:
Chance and spontaneity are also counted as causes...[but] some people claim that there is a determinate cause for everything which is said to be a cause or a spontaneous event.
Aristotle, in his discursive style, a precursor to the academic style today, introduces the possibility of chance being a cause; and he offers an example:
They say that the rotation is a spontaneous event - that the motion which separated things out and established the orderly nature of the world began spontaneously.
Compare this to the contemporary notion of the universe arising by a quantum fluctuation; a mechanism for said spontaneous event.
But this should occasion surprise: at the same time as holding nature or intelligence or something (ie something other than chance) responsible for the existence and generation of animals and plants - since things do not come from particular seeds by chance, but an olive-tree comes from one kind of seed and a man from another.
He considers this as not fact, as such; or beyond contesting; he introduces the possibility that chance plays a part during the life of natural kinds; and not at the beginning:
In section II.8. final causes are crucially important in nature
By the same token, if someone's grain is ruined on the threshing floor, this does not mean that the rain fell for the purpose of ruining the grain: it is just a coincidence. So what is wrong with the idea that the parts of natural things are like this as well?
Take teeth, for instance: what is wrong with the idea that the front teeth neccesarily come through sharp and suitable for biting, and the back teeth flat and good for crushing food?
This in contemporary language is called Lamarkism - a competing theory to Darwins at the time of Darwin; but he questions this theory which posits a purpose.
Why should there be purpose behind this? Why should it not just be an accident?
And what goes for teeth can go for other natural kinds.
And the same question could be asked about any other part of the body which seems to have some purpose. So, where every part turned out to be just as it would have been if it had some purpose, the creatures survived because, spontaneously, they happened to be put together in a useful way.
By chance, the animals form 'useful' ie fit, for a 'purpose', ie it's environment construed broadly; which they 'survived'.
But everything else has been destroyed and continues to be destroyed, as Empedocles says, of his 'cow-like creatures with the heads of men'.
And what has not survived, ie not 'fit' for 'survival' is (tautologically) destroyed; he implicitly ascribes the doctrine to Empedocles; he now introduces the notion of 'defect' of error, ie mutantcy
...In the beginning, then, any combination like those 'cow-like creatures' which were incapable of achieving some definite end, must have arisen because of some defect in their source
Consider the puzzle of the 'chicken and egg' - what came first, has a resolution given our knowledge of genetics. The chicken must develop true from the egg; thus it is in the egg or 'seed' that a 'defect' or error in the genetic code can occur; now consider that Aristotles says:
Beside seed must come first, creatures cannot just spring straight into existence
ie the fruit of the seed breeds true from the seed; hence mutantcy can only occur there, that is in the seed.
Finally after stating the evolutionary theory of Aristotle, he states:
It is ridiculous for people to deny that there is purpose if they cannot see the agent of change without any planning...
So he re-opens the question of purpose after first critically evaluating the 'Lamarkian' theory which posits a purpose in a certain sense; and then positing a 'Darwinian' type theory which demolishes said purpose through selection and survival of the fittest.