OK, so...
Anthropic Principle, as you've espoused, being based upon the fallacy of 'fine tuning' is on rocky ground at best. The unwarranted presumptions in the fine tuning argument are well established.
Quantum Mechanics - the misinterpretation here of the 'observer' is also well-established. There is no requirement for an observer to be conscious in order for a wave-function to collapse. Evidence of this is readily available every time we look up at the stars and see light twinkling. You may suggest that our looking is what causes the wave-function to collapse so that we can see, but the twinkling is caused by interactions with the atmosphere on the way through, waveforms that have to have already collapsed during the interactions; are those ozone molecules 'conscious'?
Evolution - design is not evolution, the two are very, very different. That design can, at times, involve an iterative modelling element does parallel the natural selection element of the current model of evolution, but design is not a random variation on prior success, it's a deliberate researched attempt at progress. Most importantly, though, is the misunderstanding that evolution is a process from simple to complex and one of development. Evolution can move towards simplicity if that's what's of benefit in the instant, there is no overarching framework to evolution with 'development' to somewhere as a goal.
Artificial Intelligence - evolved intelligence will almost certainly diverge from artificial intelligence in some ways, but there's nothing in either that seems to require the supposition of 'soul/spirit/atma'. Whilst it's true that any potential artificial intelligence will not have invented itself, neither did we 'invent' us - we emerged from the iterative process of evolution. You say that 'If automatons can behave like humans, we cannot conclude that we are also automatons!' - we perhaps cannot prove, but it's not an unreasonable supposition based upon the evidence. If two things manifest the same behaviours in response to similar inputs, why would we presume (in the absence of any other evidence) that there are qualitatively different internal processes going on? It's possible, but you need a reason to presume it, not just the possibility.
Spectrum - I'd agree, to an extent, that the human tendency - or, at least, the Western cultural tendency, perhaps - to classify into rigidly defined 'boxes' is increasingly something that the natural sciences are having to undo. Species classificiations, with clearly demarked and defined boundaries are not always the practical reality. However, accepting that biological classifications often fall on a continuum is not sufficient to warrant claims of 'spirit' - saying the line between two species of birds is actually more blurred than was originally thought is not the same as suggesting, therefore, that phoenixes are real.
O.
