I am very critical towards theories that try to describe (self-)conciousness as emerging property of systems only. Emergence is nothing more than an euphemism for surrender: It is the admission that the theory cannot explain this in any way and - more importantly - in some sense that the theory is lacking something.
The evolutionary problem of the becoming of the conditions that make personal self possible is perhaps not explicable at all, at least I am not aware of any convincing explanation. But what already has been explained long before is the becoming of personal self in a being that already is capable of it because of the structure of its existance (a priori conditions in the best of its meanings).
Self-conciousness or the knowledge of the self is traditionally defined by the possibility of reciprocal self-recognition by and in other selves. This reflects on the problem of Descartes: In order to realize cogito ergo sum you already have to have a self that is part of conciousness first and foremost.
Most theories of the personal self I know that adress the becoming of it do at some point refer to what was first worked out by Fichte, who's concept of the absolute self is commonly rejected because of its idealistic implications, but nevertheless his dialectics of self and non-self for the becoming of self-conciousness is regarded as generally correct.
This theory is elaborated in his Grundlagen der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre, reformulated in his Grundlagen des Naturrechts (opus postumum! from lectures and manuscripts), which (of course, like many other ingenius works of German Idealism -.-) is not yet to be found in English as far as I found out, only in German.
In the most abstract (and methodologically elaborated) way of the conditions a priori for personal self that I am aware of is established, deducted and described by Plessner in his The Levels/Stages of (the) Organic and Man, Introduction to Philosophical Anthropology (translation at work, yet unpublished). But he also cannot say anything about the becoming of them. (Disclaimer for those professionals that dislike philosophical anthropology because of Gehlen and Heidegger: This is totally different and by far more philosophical).
To summarize, the problem is far too complex to squeeze it in any format suitable for SE. And any answer given would hardly be accurate.
What I can recommend for further reading is the only published book in English language that does introduce into this thinking: Plessner's Philosophical Anthropology