IANAB, but no. Concepts of “less evolved” and “more evolved” imply a directionality in evolution that is not there. Humans genotypically are the one species. We are a different species from our predecessors. That is, we are all much closer genetically to each of the rest of us than we are to any pre H. sapiens creature. Within any species there is a wide range of variation, but that does not mean any one trait in any particular individual makes any individual “closer” to the ancestor species.
This is not like breeding dogs for smooth coats, where within a few generations, one trait is artificially selected, and relatively rapid apparent change (still within the one species) can be seen. Concepts like “throwbacks” are sometimes used in this context where a woolly-coated dog appears after a few generations of selective breeding for smoothness.
All that is happening is that the genetic variability of the group of dogs being targetted for artificial selection is reduced with respect to the genes for coat texture over a few dozen generations. Inevitably, however, the genetic lottery throws up cases of the relatively rare variant which was being selected against. From a breeder’s point of view, this earns pejorative language, because he has artificially imposed arbitrary criteria for desirability on the process. But all the animals produced are still domestic dogs.
We are thousands of generations from our ancestor species. Any variation within humans hairiness has nothing to do with being “closer” to prehumans, no more than being pigeon-toed means the individual is somehow genetically closer to a duck.