""1.   I do not believe I have ever known of anything evolving for the worse, although I am sure that there are examples. The opposite of evolution of course is revolution, which involves rapid change, often with unforeseen and possibly undesired consequences. Mankind evolved but brought about the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution.

2. For there to be evolution there does not automatically or necessarily have to be any change in circumstance, the driver can often be just a simple desire to improve things and born of an enquiring mind.""

Thank you T, for taking the trouble to prove my point.

1. Revolution is not the opposite of evolution. That would be regression, or devolution.
2. The agricultural, and industrial, revolutions were in fact technological in nature. They took place against the background of ensuring survival of the burgeoning populations of humanity.
3. Evolution, by definition, is the action on species of survival enhancing mutation.

It is not a conscious, or rational, process.

In terms of mother nature, she is monumentally indifferent to the needs of individual species. She just doesn't care.

Mutation happens, and if the change is advantageous, a species thrives. If not, it dies.

What you describe as evolution is nothing more than technical innovation. It has enhanced human life, undoubtedly, but it hasn't enabled us to make even a noticeable dent in, for example, the population of unpleasant and harmful pests e.g. Locusts, Termites, Killer bees etc. etc.

They have evolved, we have advanced, but right now they look like a better bet for the future.

Don T