I'm just trying to show that you might have some misconception yourself. If we start by going back to your original post the only thing you said was:
2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.
And when you state that all living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved” that is simple not true
, not according to the theory of evolution at least. And that is because:
1 - All living organisms have not existed (according to evolution) for the same amount of time, do organisms start to evolve before they start to exist?
2 - Some living organisms are supposed to be closer to a common ancestor (if it is from a DNA or characteristics point of view really doesn't matter here) which means that they have changed less.
You try to explain these inconsistencies by:
When evolutionists say that a present-day organism is primitive, they mean that it has retained some ancestral characteristics. Primitive does not mean that the organism is literally unchanged. Even a so-called primitive bacterium has undergone significant genetic change compared to the ancestral population, and therefore has evolved according to the most widely used biological definition of evolution: a change in the allele frequencies of a population over generations. So while primitive traits may not change much over time, the organism as a whole is still considered to be evolving according to evolution.
But what does the definition of primitive have anything to do with if a bacteria has evolved less (and that would probably mean both less DNA and characteristics development) than a fish from an imaginary common ancestor. Or do you seriously try to lure us into some sort of belief that this ancestor could be a multicellular life form with eyes? And if you don't believe that why do you believe that the common ancestor was a single cellular life form without eyes?
The problem with using terms like “more evolved” and “less evolved” is the implication that evolution follows a linear sequence. By linear, I mean the false idea that evolution is a series of stages beginning with unicellular organisms and ending with humans.
I do understand that evolutionary theory does not say that explicitly. But still if you would try to describe the common ancestor of fish and bacteria it would probably have alot more in common with bacteria than with a fish. Why is that?
According to evolution, a modern species of bacteria has been evolving for the same amount of time as a modern species of fish. It is entirely possible that the bacterial species has undergone the same number of discrete evolutionary events as the fish. Actually, I would guess that the bacterial species has undergone many more evolutionary changes, simply because bacteria reproduce so quickly which provides more opportunity for mutation. So if bacteria have evolved so much, why haven’t they become more complex? Bacteria are an extraordinarily successful organism, having adapted to all kinds of extreme environments. Being large, intelligent, and multicellular is not necessarily the best way to maintain high fitness. Adaptations are most apparent on organisms we can see without microscopes, but bacteria have plenty of genetic adaptations too. They’re just not as visible to us as those possessed by the fish. Also keep in mind that evolutionary change is not necessarily directional: an organism can become more complex, and then go back to being less complex due to environmental pressures. An example that comes to mind here are the blind amphibians living in caves: they developed complex eyes, and then lost them again due to the selective pressure of complete darkness.
Are you sure that two modern species has evolved for the same amount of time and how do you show that using the evolutionary theory. Say that we wish to compare E. coli with a modern salmon. 1 - How do you establish for how long the organism has evolved, what definitions do you use?2 - Aren't E. coli an organism that is supposed to have appeared earlier than a salmon. And does that not mean that it needed less time to evolve?
I find that there are a lot of question that come up when reading your last text, things like:
How do you know how many discrete evolutionary steps a certain organism has made?
Is the size and complexity of the genome in an organism an indication of anything and in that case of what?
Why do you think bacterial species has undergone many more discrete evolutionary steps? Is it not more likely that the bacteria reached a local optima early on (think genetic algorithms and how they work) and that natural selection actually selected for the already optimized solution all the time, instead of evolving new solutions that where less optimal and select for that.
Why would adaptability or fitness measure how evolved a certain organism is, does adaptability or fitness say anything about how many discrete evolutionary steps that have been taken?