The assumption that those who are on top of our society are fittest evolutionarily is wrong. Evolutionarily a Donald Trump is less fit than a teenage girl with 4 kids. But you'll seldom find someone who is arguing that we should all emulate the teenager.

Secondly the "evolution implies that things shall remain as they are" argument that I mentioned only makes sense at equilibrium. But I pointed out that evolution has not had time to react to a lot of aspects of our current society, so (as I pointed out) evolution has little connection with what our society requires. (And evolution's goals differ from our societal ones.)

That argument remains true for most species, most of the time. But only because adaptation usually proceeds faster than environments change, so what is fittest now is pretty close to what everything is bred for. (Of course we're now changing our environment faster than evolution can go...)

Thirdly attempting to draw any norms from evolutionary principles is flawed at best. Evolution allows us to note, This seems to work. That doesn't mean that we want things to work like that. The result is kind of like using Machiavelli as your moral compass. There is no question that his strategies are effective. But they're not very nice.

Cheers,
Ben

PS Your reference to the Panda's thumb suggests that you've read at least some Gould. My comment about how things usually should remain as they are is why Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium says that, most of the time, things are at equilibrium. The exceptions are, of course, very important and not to be underestimated.