Ah I am sorry, I was not precise in my wording and thus wrong. I meant animals as in cellular organisms that are mobile and eat matter. A lot of people think plants are a prerequisite for animals which is wrong in at least one way. I studied biology so I should have worded it correctly. I should have said that heterotrophs and autotrophs with a basic form of photosynthesis -that looks nothing like the form it has nowadays- first colonized the world. Then multicellular animals without hard bits and less defined organs came into existence and shortly followed by "plants" like kelp and other loosely structured colonies of algae. Then a long time after that real plants and land plants and then animals with hard bits. I am telling this from memory and should probably check it. I was reacting in a way I usually react when someone says something stupid in a pub. But this is of course a more learned platform and I should have reacted accordingly.
With more evolved we mean: more steps between the common ancestor than the compared one, when defined. I must admit, it is not based in facts, to make an extreme point: we have a common ancestor with sponges. But sponges have not evolved a lot since they first came on the scene. We are more evolved that sponges. Similarly, early plants and sponges had a common ancestor. Early plants are probably more evolved than sponges.