Weby-it is our ability to control the environment that negates evolutionary forces in human events. Darwin's simple, yet elegant ideas were (are) meant to describe how so much variation existed in the natural world. His explanation is that the environment causes certain traits to be selected because of their value to the survival of the creature (species) in the environment. Thus, the peppered moth that maintained it's light coloration was easily spotted and eaten by birds, while those lucky enough to undergo the genetic mutation to darker coloration survived. Were we humans in the peppered moth's predicament, we would have repainted trees, ourselves, designed anti bird weaponry, and paid for welfare for those light moths forced into hiding. Not exactly a good fit for Darwin's ideas.
Perhaps you have read "Why Most Things Fayl," by Paul Ormerod. He is a proponent of your view, and applies evolutionary ideas to many human arenas in his book, but mostly to business and government. He asserts
"Whether it is the great characters of tragedy or giant corporations such as Microsoft, the future remains covered in a deep veil to all. Species, people, firms, governments, are all complex entities that must survive in dynamic environments which evolve over time. Their ability to understand such environments is inherently limited."
I have a problem with the "inherently limited" part. People are far more creative and insightful than Ormerod gives them credit for. Thus, Albert Einstein can imagine himself riding on a beam of light, and conceive of a revolutionary idea. How does evolution explain Einstein's thirst for knowledge? It would appear that Einstein's limits were not so inherent.
People are also whimsical and fickle. I wonder how Ormerod would explain the phenomena of the pet rock? Remember those? How long did that last? Was the rise and fall of the Pet Rock an example of evolution at work? Evolution is too limiting an idea to explain all human behavior. Some human behavior is adaptive, and some much less so.
Applying Darwin's ideas to human psychology equals the Behaviorist school of thought. Behaviors that result in reinforcement are repeated, while behaviors that do not are discarded, according to this school. Even B. F. Skinner, the chief proponent of Behaviorism, recanted this notion. In his last days, Skinner revealed that he thought there was more going on in the human mind than just seeking reinforcement. Most psychologists have moved on, as well.
When we address human society/interactions, we are talking about behavior and thinking (which even Skinner admitted exists), not physical characteristics or genetics which provide automatic environmental benefit to those lucky enough to have them. We are more than that, if we choose to be. Or, in some self destructive individuals, less. Ideas and persuasion are the coin of the realm in our society-and those can change at the merest whim of their owners. While Darwin's ideas can explain much of human development up until the advent of agriculture (I would argue), once our massive amounts of cortical processing power began to achieve a high degree of control over our environment, Darwin (evolution) fell by the wayside.
AI
