[spunkets]

"...you know as well as I do that evolutionary theorists just EXPECT that man MUST be getting BETTER over time. Meaning: smarter, more "fit," etc. That means past (dead) generations before our own were less smart, less fit, etc., etc., than we who are presently living."

No. The processes responsible for the instantiation of phenotypic diversity are not restricted to such qualification. What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.

"I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature?" And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?

The only appropriate use of the word Progress in nature would be to describe something like trait appearence vs. time, or diversity of species vs time. The appearence of anything in particular would only be progress in a contrived subjective scheme used as a reference. Purpose is generally only found with reference to those same subjective schemes. Else, it simply refers to some physical functional attribute.

[betty boop]

What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.

What or who defines "what is possible?"

[hosepipe]

[ The only appropriate use of the word Progress in nature would be to describe something like trait appearence vs. time, or diversity of species vs time. ]

Has any living or dead human ever witnessed(observed) birth of a new species?..