Yeah, I mean the whole point I'm working on here (going off of codeflo who I was replying to, who was making much the same point) -- is that we believe that the biological process of evolution always leads in the direction of "advancement", and something that is "more advanced" (which is to some extent both subjective, and a value judgement rather than a descriptive one) has "more evolution" behind it (the biological kind).

Yes, the word "evolved" can be used in a non-scientific way that has nothing to do with the origin of species or natural selection or genetic change over time too. I don't know if this the cause of our confusion, or that it's the result of our confusion, because so many of us, since Darwin, have had these assumptions that "evolution" functions teleologically and in a certain direction at a certain rate.

So that leads the wrong idea that, as codeflo points out, "evolutionary theory puts humans (or hominins) last" over chimpanzees, or humans undergone "more evolution" than chimpanzeees.

When we understand the biological process of evolution more clearly, we can understand the natural world and the species in it and the relation between them more clearly.

I think „adapted“ is a better word