Getting philosophical

So here's what I've been thinking about lately: contrary to popular belief, we (humans) are not on the top of the evolutionary scale. I am prepared to argue that dogs are evolutionarily more advanced than humans. For the moment we can set aside their obvious superiority in loyalty, love, and general good-naturedness, in which humans can be notoriously challenged. These things we somehow leave out of our evaluations of evolutionary advancement. Realistically though, we evaluate the evolutionary advancement of animal species by intelligence, aptitude, language, opposing thumbs, walking on two legs, building tools, creating and using technology, and where we sit on the food chain (despite the fact that it is still best for our bodies, for non-human animals, and for the enviromnent for us all to eat a little "lower" on the food chain). Okay, so what if that puts us at our own self-defined top of the ladder? Even if we accept our self-generated and self-directed definitions of intelligence and superiority, it seems to me that we have overlooked one important question.

Which is more evolutionarily advanced: the animal who can walk on two feet, pick things up, use technology, and eat anything it wants to eat, or the animal who has systematically adopted a position of being pampered and served and fed by that other evolutionarily advanced animal?

We think they're just simple-minded little sweethearts in dresses, but don't be fooled. In terms of what really counts, they are the superior species.