Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to have this debate with Con. I hope he can help me better understand how it is possible that the evolutionary theory could solely be the answer to how humankind came into possession of the mind, and that all of our questions and inquiries into the mysteries of the origin, essence, and nature of phenomena is a direct consequence, or result, of said evolution; because my argument is indeed to the contrary, of which I will hold to my word and expound in this debate. May he forgive any ignorance on my part, and correct any false contentions I may have, but what I will share, ask, or explain is a sincere suspicion regarding this matter. Now to satisfy his curiosity I will answer his questions. I concur I concur, evolution is indeed very apparent to me, just not pertaining to the essence of self-aware consciousness I concur I truly have no interest regarding the age of the planet I concur, but to an extent, and that extent is’ independence’. I hold to the view of interdependence (no phenomena is truly independent / no phenomena exists inherently) I will begin by making what I see to be fine but significant distinctions between intellect (knowledge) and reason (wisdom), and express my suspicion that the latter does not arise or emerge as a result by development of the former. (My view stems from the Pythagorean model for Human Consciousness, which he divided into three parts: Passion, Intellect, and Reason, with it he noted “Passion and Intellect are possessed by the other animals, but ‘Reason’ by man alone.) Reason (introspection, question asking, and inquiry born of withdrawal [skillful or otherwise]) exists unilaterally with intellect (the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) for those in possession of both, therefore, those who are not (‘lower animals’) will not acquire it through evolution, or natural advancement, of their mere intellect; because the relationship between intellect (the seed of knowledge), and reason (the seed of wisdom [where I argue self-awareness resides]) is not of causality. Intellect gives birth to conditioned responses, whereas reason gives birth to creative responses (this is humankind’s unique ‘edge’ over the lower animals). The differences between the two are paramount. We can teach animals many impressive things, but what they fail to do is be able to take what they learn from us and teach it to their own kin, or anything else for that matter, even another human. I believe it is Aristotle who is accredited with the quote “The true demonstration of one’s own understanding of something lies within their ability to teach”, which they (animals) apparently fail to be able to do so, for they are merely trained (conditioned) by factors from without, thus it is not a true teaching (an awakening to creation), because there is no true understanding (reasoned upon by factors from within), which on the other hand can arise seemingly spontaneous even amongst human children. I argue the cause to be because of an inherent higher quality of mind rather than an accumulated higher quantity of mind. Now the animal perhaps, dare I say, could ‘acquire piece by piece’ what we have (regarding consciousness) would it be able to achieve an infinite lifespan (immortality), but this is no less of the same dilemma of an object trying to accelerate to the speed of light by achieving an infinite mass (omnipresence). I can also present my case in a more illustrious fashion using the legend of the ‘Philosophers Stone’ (which I contend to be a euphemism for the human mind [in the likeness of “god” {i.e. prime creative source}] hence its cool name) An object that can turn base metals into gold; an un-evolved unconditioned creative source (reason and self-awareness) evolving and conditioning a less than ‘divine’ (baser intellect) phenomena into a state of more wieldable use. Now we can increase and quantify the quality of that gold (more and more effectively conditioning an animal to wield higher and higher knowledge and skills, by means of human teaching or natural evolutionary natural selection); but that doesn’t bring said gold one iota closer to being another Philosophers Stone. Now there is more to be said on ‘mind’, especially pertaining to reason (creative sources and creative responses of consciousness) and its origin and nature, but I’m sure that’s going to fit better with, and more appropriate to introduce in, my answer to Cons rebuttals to my proposed argument thus far against attributing our consciousness and its aspects to evolutionary theory.