[PDerna]

You are playing into my hands. Like I said, your hierarchy is information, but it is not an argument. It tells me the 'what,' but not the 'how' or the 'why.' Because the 'how' of how these organisms were formed was never observed, you are making a presumption, based on your prior philosophic opinion that there is no Creator, that all life arrived and developed Darwin style, mutation by mutation. The evidence does not do this; only your opinions do. Your observations are science. Your conclusions are philosophy.

[VadeRetro]

I'm making a very simple induction that lawful processes observed in case after case after case are also working in obviously similar cases. It's the same thing as deciding that if spectrography works on the Earth and in the sun, it works in farther parts of the universe. Anywhere at all where we see the spectral signature of hydrogen, we are indeed detecting hydrogen, even if we can't wander out to collect a sample to check our assumption.

All inductive logic is "flawed" in not being rock-solid geometrically deductive. All of science has this flaw. Nevertheless, science is what we know about how the world works. If you don't like the answers it's too bad.

[VadeRetro]

You are playing into my hands.

I should also mention that your hands remain empty. All the evidence still points to a gradual evolution of human consciousness. Where is the evidence for any other version of events?