Between humans and bacteria which one is more highly evolved
Answers
Answer:
This is a standard question. The whole problem boils down to what you mean by "more evolved"? Below I am answering the question considering a number of possible definitions. If you have other ("clearly defined") definitions in mind, let us know.
Are [humans] "more evolved" than present-day bacteria?
If "more evolved" == "more evolution time"
Then, both bacteria and humans are exactly as evolved!
As all life on earth shares a common ancestor, all currently living creature has evolved for exactly the same amount of time (about 3.8 billion years).
If "more evolved" == "more generations"
Then, bacteria are more evolved.
Bacteria typically have a much shorter generation time than humans do, so with this metric, bacteria would be more evolved.
If "more evolved" == "more fixed mutations since the MRCA"
Then, it is a little more complicated and may depend upon which bacteria lineage you are considering.
If the genome-wide mutation rate is μ and the haploid population size is N, then there are Nμ new mutations every generation. Given that each one of these mutations has a probability of fixing (fixing = reaching a frequency of 1 in the population) is 1N, the rate at which mutations fix is μN1N=μ at each generation. If a species has g generations per year, then over t years, μgt mutations would have accumulated.
The genome of bacteria is typically much smaller than the one of humans, but their mutation rate per nucleotide is much higher. Overall, the genome-wide mutation rate is rather higher in humans but that might well differ from species to species. However, again, bacteria have had more generations per year than humans and therefore bacteria species likely have fixed more mutations than humans have. So from this metric, bacteria are rather more evolved than humans.
If "more evolved" == "able to resist higher acceleration"
Then, bacteria are more evolved although that might among bacteria lineages
Some bacteria have been grown under 400,000 g (National Geographic), while a typical human can only tolerate about 5 g and for only a short period of time!
If "more evolved == more impact on the environment"
The term impact is a little hard to define but I think it is of interest to highlight that, even here, bacteria would probably win because cyanobacteria caused the great oxygenation event which is probably the largest planet-wide environmental change caused by biological organisms.
(thanks @Thawn for this definition he gave in the comments)
If "more evolved" == "having more lungs"
Then, humans are more evolved.
Bacteria have no lungs, humans have two.
If "more evolved" == "bigger genomes"
Then, humans are more evolved. Note also that corn would be more evolved than humans with this metric!
If "more evolved" == "higher fraction of the genome that is encoding for proteins"
Then, bacteria are more evolved.
If "more evolved" == "more protein coding sequences"
Then, humans are more evolved.
If "more evolved" == "more phenotypically different from the MRCA"
You would have to list specific phenotypes of interest. So, here the term "more evolved" still remained a little undefined.
Also, we do not have much information about the MRCA of these two highly distantly related lineages. The question could be more easily answered for more closely related lineages. For example, in mammals, if you consider the following traits and always ask what species is (likely) most different from the MRCA of all mammals
body mass -> blue whale
brain mass -> sperm whale (yes, sperm whales have a very big brain)
lips shape -> platypus (they have a beak)
time taken to type Hello\nWorld on a computer keyboard -> humans