Remember one important thing: as archaeological evidence tells us, human brain hasn't changed noticeably for at least tens of thousand years. For the most of this period the technology remained very primitive, there was also little population growth. In fact, thinks like bipedality and large brain (entailing smaller jaw power, bigger parturient mortality etc.) hampered primitive humans significantly. Being so awkward and feeble, they were an easy catch for many ancient carnivorous. And their average longeivity was in fact much smaller than that of apes. Circa 70000 ys. ago they were even on the verge of extinction, remaining not more than several thousands on
the whole Earth. And natural selection doesn't work by "what'd be better over millenia", in works by "what's better now".
That's inconsistent. The ability to exchange abstract information can't exist without the capacity for abstract thought.
Knowledge the primitive humans really required was very applied. The capacity for abstract thought in those remote times when we should've evolved led at best to the invention of religious practices and shamanic rites that took out time and energy from humans with little practical utility. Thus it couldn't evolve just by natural selection.
Were any of them plausible, why the process hasn't as yet been reproduced in tube? Scientists can simulate the conditions in the middle of stars, what's wrong with abiogenesis?