Journal Science and Ardipithecus ramidus

I like the 'Ardi' story, but does it really say chimps are more advanced?
They may have split off tree after us is what they are saying, isn't it?
There has long been the thought that we and neanderthals etc may have just been
the few successful branches of a fruitful humanoid tree, perhaps chimps were just
successful in another way?
.

My take on this is that chimps have evolved morphologically more than humans have since the split. To me this means that there have been more physical changes in their 'branch' than in ours which implies that their development has been more influenced by their environment than ours has.

Degrees of evolution or morphological change do not equate to degrees of 'advancement' or have good or bad values attached to them. I think it seems logical that humans, as we developed the ability to communicate and share information (warnings, solutions, etc), became better at adapting to our environment and consequently had/have a greater range of fitness to changes.

In other words, human evolution has been greater in the area of intelligence and problem solving while our ape cousins have evolved more physically.

True, but we have had some significant changes as well, a slight rotation of the
hips, our posture became more upright as we came out of the trees, we lost
most of our hair (shelter, fire, clothes?). I cannot remember who said it, but
he thought we have stalled evolutionary wise because of our brain.
We modify our enviroment or ourselves to survive. A naked human animal
would not survive long without technology; shelter, tools, weapons, heat, clothing.
On a day like today, 0.0, wet snow, north breeze, I surmise only the specially
trained or lucky would make past the first few hours.

"I think it seems logical that humans, as we developed the ability to communicate and share information (warnings, solutions, etc),
became better at adapting to our environment and consequently had/have a greater range of fitness to changes.

In other words, human evolution has been greater in the area of intelligence and problem solving while our ape cousins have evolved more physically."

What I wonder is, do we have to reinterpret "degrees of 'advancement'".
SInce our surroundings have little difference anymore, our only pressures
are cognitive, how will we evolve? Taller, healthier, smarter?

I think we have a tendency to think of ourselves as being the most advanced end product or nearest to perfection as though the process of natural selection has a set goal or perfect image it is working towards.

It's sometimes difficult to shake off the years of indoctrination that bred the image of us as the specially engineered product of a master plan and see that we just happen to be one of the only (if not the only) species who happens to be in a position to understand the position we happen to be in (as it happens).

Oh, sorry I didn't mean advanced that way.

Sort of the opposite, since recording began, we have been on a anti-evolutionary quest,
unknown to us. Our best have been sacrificed in war, again and again.
But the social and enviromental pressures are not what is expected now anyway.
The earner not the strongest, passes genetics on more successfully.

Are we trading or missing true advancement somehow by being smarter than your average
orang or chimp?

Perhaps advanced is as advanced does?

It's a bit like trying to quantify success. If a creature hasn't changed in millions of years (like sharks and crocodiles) can they be considered successful? Probably, but I'm very glad that my life consists of more than eating and fornicating.

Can a crocodile smile?