"Evolution" is the process of life changing from one form into another. Here on Earth, it's governed by a process called natural selection, wherein creatures better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those beneficial traits on to their offspring. Because "better suited" is not "stronger" or "smarter" or "faster", changes in and to the environment can render what used to be an advantage now the exact opposite.
So no, humans are not "devloving", because that doesn't exist. Evolution is not progress towards a goal, but progress away from a starting point. Depending on where you draw the line, very early humans or very late protohumans had extremely pale skin, because there's no sense in wasting melanin on skin you're just going to cover with heavy fur. As we lost the fur, it was an advantage for our skin to darken, so those with darker skin were more likely to survive and reproduce (that way, you don't keel over from skin cancer). Eventually, we left the savanna, and some us wandered off to places where there's much less sunlight, and lighter skin was an advantage, so those who had THAT were likely to survive and reproduce (that way, you don't keel over from vitamin D deprivation). Is that what you mean by "devolution"? It's reversion to an earlier state (in one particular aspect), which is pretty much the closest thing you can get.
The sentence "Dogs were made from wolves, but no superior version of wolf has evolved" doesn't make sense. There HAS evolved a superior version of wolf- we call them dogs. They are "superior" not only in an immediate survival sense- teaming up with humans has ENORMOUSLY increased the chances of their reproductive success- but in an evolutionary one as well, since they've adapted to their changing environment: they're not running wild with the pack anymore; they're hanging with the humans.
You can make an argument that artificial selection (traits chosen as beneficial by humans) should be considered separately from natural selection, but as Belyaev's work shows, it's not one way- our great partnership was as much wolves domesticating humans as the other way around. Obviously, they don't control our breeding, but those humans who could adapt to and communicate with dogs better than those who couldn't had an enormous competitive advantage.
If humans are going to devolve, it's going to be through intelligence, because that's pretty much the only thing we have going for us over every other animal, and while there are some unbelievably stupid people out there, I don't see it happening in a long time, if at all.
I'm not even sure devolution is even a thing anyway, organisms always evolve to adapt to their surroundings in some way, to do the opposite sounds like it could not ever happen.
Humans are just intelligent? What about the instincts that underly all of that
Instinct has nothing on the ability to rationalise; the ability to create tools will always be far superior to an animal's instinct.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!There is no such thing as de-evolution.
The ones best fit in their habitat survive and pass down their genes.
If that habitat is a bunch of humans selecting the specimen with the smallest body and most annoying bark, cause some humans want a dog that fits inside a purse, thats still some form of evolution - or maybe breeding, but not de-evolution.
And when there is no human involved, evolution takes hundred thousands to a millions of years.
It's apparent that you're Going Under. ;)
Evolution doesn't want to make species stronger or more ferocious or more intelligent. It wants to make them more successful at reproducing.
there hundreds of thousands of wolves in the world and hundreds of millions of dogs.
as for humans, we will evolve in ways that lead to "more children". You can speculate what those ways are.
Ok. Thats not the point. Wolves have higher intelligence, bigger bodies, better senses, and amazing instincts. Tf are you going to say a pet is better than a hunter
I look at college age kids and they are mostly out of shape and addicted to their phones. They seem stunted somehow to me.
Vitamin deficiencies in the school lunches are a big cause... a recent lesson I got from nature happened just this summer. i had two plants growing side by side in two different pots, one plant grew big and green. The other plant was short and pale. I fertilised the dirt with ash and lime salts and cut both plants down to just a few inches in length. The regrowth on both plants is green and beautiful but the recently fertilised one is growing even faster. Beforehand the slow growing plant had grown 30% of the size of the other one. With the soy formulas, and really the bad breastmilk that babies are getting today, they just aren't getting the nutrients they need to develop.
Yes, of course we are
Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion