Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

Why can't one genetic step lead to consciousness? Consciousness is generally speaking complex, apparently (complex in what way?), but the first type of consciousness that ever formed may have been very simple.

What do you mean by simple? Relative to us, yes. But it's still complex.

And even if the first ever type of consciousness was complex, why does that imply that it can't have happened in one genetic step?

It can happen, but not by "random" mutations. In other words, there is a huge difference between a concious being and non-conscious being. There has to be so many mutations that work together to produce it. But random mutations in one step doesn't seem to be rational.

[The Grand Nudger]

Less asserting, more elaborating and demonstrating. At your leisure.

[Mystic]

Again you acknowledge there needs to many steps between A and B and direction by natural selection. You also acknowledge there needs to be one step between A and B. You don't see the contradiction?

There must be no gap between A and B.
There must a huge gap between A and B.

It's a contradiction. A paradox.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me see if approaching this another way might be helpul. I'm going to arrange some broad categories of organisms and you tell me at what point consciousness begins (or ends, as it were)

Mammalia
Chordata
Animalia
Eukarya
Biota

(Who's acknowledging anything btw...have you given anyone anything to acknowledge? All I see are people trying to tease information out of you whilst you play the steel trap. Whether one step or one million are required is entirely dependent on your definition..and I have to add, that your definition may only be useful for classifying the relative complexity of effect, not consciousness itself..whatever the hell that may be.)

[Mystic]

I don't see how it will solve the paradox to go into such details. If you can write a post bringing up your point with that, then do so.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't, or don't wish to? You seem to be of the opinion that evolutionary biology can't explain consciousness but refuse to even suggest a starting point. I can state definitely that you won't figure this out unless you are willing to participate. How can I form a point when you refuse to go beyond a bare assertion? What point is there to be had? I'm about to simply dismiss your assertion.

You say it was magic that did the deed, I say it was waffles, since both assertions are on equal footing with regards to consciousness and I can at least demonstrate the existence of waffles that's case closed. Waffles caused consciousness to exist.

[Mystic]

Well you can go into details and I will read the point you bring and the relevance. I rather not play the question and answer thing, when I don't know where it's heading. If there is a direction, you can articulate it in a post explaining it.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is pretty weak stuff Mystic. You seemed to be interested in an explanation but you refuse to specify what you want explained? The minimum bar for consciousness is a requirement for discussion of how it came about. If you don't have an organism in mind you could suggest attributes so that I might offer one up, and if you agree that the organism in question is conscious we can take a look at it's evolutionary history (if we have that information and I feel competent relating it). That's where it's headed, and that much should have been obvious from the very beginning.

(this is important, because I'm of the opinion that you can't find a single living thing that isn't conscious, we can only describe varying degrees of relative complexity in experience..but I suspect that you wouldn't share this opinion so I'd rather start where you would)

[Mystic]

This is pretty weak stuff Mystic. You seemed to be interested in an explanation but you refuse to specify what you want explained?

I have no idea how this paradox can be solved, specially because it seems to me to be unsolvable.

When I show contradictions in Quran to Muslims, I don't assume there is an explanation that is possible to solve it.

Basically evolution is founded that any complex design arises from many mutations that were favored by natural selection. It doesn't always have to be advantageous, sometimes, it simply has to do with mating preferences.

No evolutionist in biology ever argues that two arms could have just came out in one step of random mutations. There is a long process involved.

Sure significant changes happen with mutations often in one step, but not something so complex as in having no consciousness to consciousness.

Based on that there has to be a long process of evolution to bridge that gap. But at the same time, there has to be but one step between consciousness and unconsciousness. We acknowledge that in the baby analogy. The mind is developing but at a certain point it has to become conscious after not.

But random mutations would not lead to such a complex design in one step. Just like arms don't develop in one step.

[The Grand Nudger]

What paradox?

That "one step" would be an arbitrary limit established by your definition of consciousness(whatever that may be) - not indicative of whether or not evolutionary process could arrive there.

Imagine that my definition of consciousness was "three pennies in hand"
Imagine that my definition of evolution was "adding a single penny"

I start with an empty hand. I add a penny. Still not conscious. I add another penny, 2 now, still not conscious. I add another penny, 3, voila, conscious (as per my definition). Adding a penny didn't meet the criteria for consciousness the first or second time, so it isn't really adding the penny that meets the criteria, but the third time I added the penny was the charm.

Now, the reason I chose pennies for my little story (and 3 no less) is this. If each penny were an attribute, no single one of those pennies could grant an organism "consciousness" (at least not by our definition), but three could, and we could get three pennies by a short sequence of "adding pennies". That final step is only important as it is the culmination of whatever happened before it (and even then only because we have decided to place the finish line there). Now, as I've said, I think consciousness only required a single penny (the very first penny), but I'm assuming that you require more than 1. I'm wondering what those pennies are. If you had even a general idea of what they were I could (at the very least) point you in the direction of how evolutionary biology explains them.