You need to read carefully before replying, Janus. Both my posts.
No we are not! We are more complicated and, maybe, have a more diverse evolutionary history and may have a wider genome with more variation. However, "advance" is a quality term and beyond our everyday communication has no meaning in evolutionary terms - the only thing that matters is fitness, and that has nothing to do with phenotype itself. We being cladistically "above" our ancestors does not indicate a qualitative supremacy above them - it only says that we are descended from an organism A, that our genotype differs significantly. You are trying to apply quality terms into evolutionary discussion, which is inane.
To prove a point: In what way are we more advanced than our recent ancestor, in objective and provable way?
I defined "advancement" as an increased rate of survival, or, greater fitness. Species are constantly fluctuating in fitness - which is why some die, some survive. Hence my discussion about "point" evaluation. Please make an effort to read and understand what I'm getting at before running off. "Qualitative supremacy" as you put it is fitness; we exist, our ancestors don't. Homo sapiens has greater fitness than Australopithecus, to choose an example - otherwise they'd be around today (primate evolution occurs by differentiation and reproductive isolation, as with most species). You're reading advanced in a way other than I defined it in my discussion.
This comes back to the nonsense they teach in high school biology and early college classes about evolution which is overly simplistic at best. All species are not equal in evolutionary terms at any period in time - some are more fit (or more advanced, as I termed it for simplicity's sake) than others. We are more fit (or advanced) than our ancestors.
I'm not saying we're more advanced than some species of insects because we build computers, I'm saying we're more advanced than some spcies of insects because humans live and breed in every place on Earth, while the particular insect species I'm referring to are dying out as their habitat is destroyed. We've adapted - they didn't. We're more advanced - or more fit.
Of course we are, since the selection pressures that morph our geno- and phenotypes are constantly changing.
Which I said. Twice. With examples.
No no no no. We are related because we have similar taxonomical history - we share common ancestor and our morphological forms are more closely related to each other than to other taxons outside this cladistical tree. If you chase this idea far enough you end up with one ancestor to all chordates and so on.
Of course, a percentage of genotype does not in any way indicate similarity or difference in phenotype. 1% difference - or 0.01% difference - can be huge if those different genes code completely different proteins which effect the procreative differences between the populations.
Now I KNOW you didn't read my earlier post. Go read it now please. I said this - in more detail, correctly (morphology has nothing to do with modern cladistics, thanks), with mechanisms. Sheesh.
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology are very complex fields of science. The evolution is only directed at fitness - whoever breeds the most, under the specific circumstances, has the most offspring. It's quite simply and very complicated, both at the same time.
And?
Again, you're doing nothing more than reiterating points I've already made, in a more simplistic fashion to boot. I'm discussing mechanisms of evolution - you're rehashing high school biology. Which would be fine, except I've already posted a simplification of a post-graduate evolution-development summation.
