In this article, I defend and expand my evolutionary account of consciousness developed in A Philosophy for the Science of Animal Consciousness against four critical replies. I respond to de Weerd's challenge to the evolutionary bottom-up approach, clarifying what it entails. I address Sachs's discussion of autopoiesis and enactivism, distinguishing my naturalistic framework from these alternatives. I engage Frankish's concerns about my remaining Cartesian commitments. I reply to Suzuki's prediction-based alternative to my evaluation-first view of consciousness, his criticism of my discussion of disunity, and his scepticism that consciousness is an adaptation. Finally, I address Chincarini's comments on the connection between the pathological complexity thesis and animal welfare science.