WHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HEAD BEATING

"One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution".[49] Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent or complex than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems which were held around the time Darwin formulated his ideas.
In many cases evolution does involve "progression" towards more complexity, since the earliest lifeforms were extremely simple compared to many of the species existing today, and there was nowhere to go but up. However, there is no guarantee that any particular organism existing today will become more intelligent, more complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to sexual maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism's environment. One way of understanding the apparent "progression" of lifeforms over time is to remember that the earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution caused life to become more complex, since becoming simpler wasn't advantageous. Once individual lineages have attained sufficient complexity, however, simplifications (specialization) are as likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms from more complex ancestors.[50]"

alright ladies and gents, you've read it and wept. That's straight from Wikipedia, and that's what modern science has decided to change it's tune to as regards evolution.
Here's what I see: Modern scientests, having lost many a debate and being shown with such logic as to wane scientific, were made to see that evolution cannot be entirely positive as was previously supposed in Darwinian times, and were so forced to change their 'tune' as regards the, a-heh, 'science'. Only in doing such a tune change, there come problems of an opposite nature.

"However, there is no guarantee that any particular organism existing today will become more intelligent, more complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to sexual maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism's environment. "

So give me an example of this 'devolution'; an animal that natural selection has deemed 'too well'. Riddle me this, debate gents: How does it work that natural selection makes an error? What this new theoretical evolutionary development seems to supppose is that the evolutionary process has gone too far, and so needs to reign itself in by devolving a little bit. Apparently "natural selection" isn't so natural. This argument is as gap-filled as the rest of the theory, and being made to fill a gap itself, it only opens another gaping chasm. If devolution exists, then evolution progresses just so far, and so needs a series of almost governmental checks and balances as defined by an undefined system of 'survival'. (which, on a side note, must involve some manner of 'devolution' as well, because there are plenty of organisms alive today that, as I earlier proved, have traits not conducive to survival. These traits cannot embody aspects of 'devolution', as they do not constitute a constituant population digression from the status quo, rather they are minority deviations that spit in the face of "survival of the fittest".) Apparently, as I understand it now, evolution works like this:

For no real reason except those of inanimately life-less chemical reactions, life manifested itself. At the point of manifestation, there was no need to worry about any real 'survival', as being created on a mass scale and having no natural predators, microbiology had to worry about two things: eating and reproduction. (There is the highest example of evolution/devolution there is: living for the sake of reproduciton.)
Somehow, again on an almost unanimous scale, these organisms who had conquered the 'survival of the fittest' problem mutated and produced tangent organisms that must have become predatory or competative in some way or other--again, entirely theoretical, and oddly convenient.
These new organisms continued to divide and conquer until they became tired of being organisms of low cell-count, and so decided to become many-celled complex organisms, so making 'survival' even more difficult for the constituent population of lower-celled orgamisms.
For some still unaccounted for and scientifically inviable reason that harbors absolutely--ABSOLUTELY--no evidence whatsoever from any field, this first theoretical multicellular organism continued to develop, eventually deciding as well to change species for some as-yet undefineable environmental factor (which, according to parallel geological theory probably didn't exist back then, the climate was relatively stable across the board as far as this aspect of the world's beginning is understood by scientests, and besides, being the first organisms on a new world without predators and evolved perfectly acclimated to their new environment, what's the point of change?) So evolution continued--you all know the story--throwing negligent missing links everywhere in it's wake of pointless life, until finnally it reached the point where there were millions of species in dominion under one master-species. (Hm. Oddly biblical, funny those wierd evolutionary parallels.) Only now, evolution realized that over the countless millenia, it had somewhere made a mistake and allowed som organisms to evolve too much, and so it was now necessary to make them 'less fit' to survive.

Dumb.
A) Evolution='survival of the fittest'. B) Devolution='survival of those who can just barely get by and no more.' How can "A" digress to "B"? This devolutionary process would have to be extreme and noteworthy. Imagine, ducks and geese devolving their primal instinct to fly south in lieu of an instinct more intelligent: finding a year round temperate environment that doesn't foster a change.
Or are you saying that evolution will give a trait to an earlier iteration of a species, only to take it as said trait has conquered it's usefulness later on? I.E., mankind no longer needs tails, so evolution takes them and leaves our skeleton with a tail bone (Which, I might add, is a physiological necessity for erect walking and comfortable relaxation.)
Well, then you've still got the problem of the appendix, which medical-historical evidence purports has been around as long as man has. Why would these latent vestiges of previous evolutionary cycles persist if devolution did exist?
Curtis, if I'm understanding this correctly, then man hasn't quite reached his optimum point yet, and must devolve to a point at which the entire species has neither too much nor too little. I.E., it can't outsmart itself, and won't have an appendix. So. Shouldn't this be happening already? We've been around a hundred-thousand years. Shouldn't there be hundreds of isolated mutations of our species in which evidence of appendii is nonexistent?
Yes. There should.
But there won't be.
Because devolution is just a cop-out for argueing in evolution's favor, a cop-out in avoiding reality.
Two cop-outs don't make a cop, just like two wrongs don't make a right.
Creationst theory is still infinitely viable when compared to evolutionary theory, more sensible, and as a philosophy conducive to a better sociological environment--even if you don't believe in such a thing.
Evolution is so outdated that it's begun to "devolve" itself.