How are you coming up with these numbers? Humans, apes, and fish are all equally evolutionarily developed considering that our species have been evolving for the same amount of time (assuming we have a common ancestor).
I don't think the concept of "more" and "less" evolved is really valid in general. Drop a human into the middle of the ocean and suddenly it will seem "less evolved" than nearly every living thing for thousands of miles.
We could go with a purely information theoretic notion of genetic complexity, but that's not ideal because genomes with a lot of random accumulated cruft would seem more complex than they really are.
Maybe with the benefit of hindsight, we could say an organism was more evolved if its lineage remained relatively stable over long periods of time or across different environments. By that measure, it's still too soon to say whether humans are more evolved than cyanobacteria or the crocodile, but at least we have a chance.
Complexity, evolved-ness, and adaptability are three different things.
Evolved-ness refers to amount of time that something has been evolving.
Adaptability refers to the ability of an organism or a species to survive in a new environment.
Complexity, like you said, more or less corresponds to genome size.
Rice is actually genetically more complex than humans are, so assuming humans and rice have a common ancestor, we are equally evolved but not equally complex. It is debatable whether or not rice is more adaptable than humans.
