Theory number 3.

[Angrboda]

The human eye did not evolve from a patch of innervated skin by a single step. Yet there is no clear dividing line between those creatures with complex, compound eyes and vision and those without.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither; first was an organism that could mutate into a chicken or egg by a single step. Rinse, lather, repeat. What are you proposing as an alternative framework to materialism and evolution and what is your evidence?

(You seem to have a circular argument here. God --> immaterial souls and divine nature; divine nature --> not materially possible; not materially possible --> not evolved; not evolution --> magic; magic --> God)

Again, until you know specifically what your endpoint B is, all your arguments will be useless. Until you define what you mean by "consciousness," this is a waste of time. However I will predict three potential responses, you define consciousness so that only certain types of consciousness meet the definition, thus guaranteeing a boundary by design; defining consciousness so that no actual creature can be demonstrated to possess the property, thus eliminating all counter-examples; fairly and appropriately defining it, resulting in what is known as a "vague" property, for which no boundary can be sensibly defined. (See vagueness and the sorites paradox)