[embwbam]

Evolution doesn't care at all if we get to the top of the food chain. I think that we, as the dominant species on the earth, mistakenly assume that we are the most evolved since we are in charge. Which is more evolutionarily successful, the human or the wheat plant?

If another mass extinction occurs, we are toast (See "The Ends of the Earth"). Relatively minor ecological changes may even destroy us. Sapience has not yet proven to grant any long-term advantage.

[yencabulator]

I've learned a good way around this flawed thinking. "More evolved" is purely a question of the amount of time that the organism has had to evolve. You are more evolved than a T. Rex, because you've had some 66 M years more time to evolve. You and that wheat plant out there right now are exactly as evolved.

(Assuming life arose on Earth only once. That seems like a convenient moment to start the clock.)

[astrobe_]

Is it only a matter of time, though? "More evolved" means "more adapted". I think that organisms with fast reproduction cycles generally adapt faster. But it is probably difficult to define a scale for adaptation as well.

[yencabulator]

Yeah they're an expression of an "evolutionary clock" that ticks faster for species with shorter generations. But then there's also evolutionary pressure from surroundings, niches left empty after disasters, etc, so trying to measure any of that is just not very objective. And you have to remember there is no "goal", no one direction, it's a brownian walk so mutations happening faster doesn't really change anything unless there's enough advantage in them.