Just business as usual, don't take it personal!
We make judgments every second based on restricted external input and abundant internal perspective. It could be that by developing the mental exercise of assumption, humans have dramatically affected their own evolution, but is it for the better? In the creature (natural) world, improvement in ability to survive is determined by what has or has not worked (experience based on results). The modifications, based on results, is evolution in action. If evolution acts toward unsuccessful results to improve the probability of successful ones, then every creature’s (predator/prey) ability to survive should be improved through evolutionary tune-ups. The prey would have more “benefits” for survival at least equal to the skills or attributes of a predator. Is there some favoritism going on?
No doubt there is FAR more to sense than what we actually sense (we are SO limited, as you say). The radio-magnetism spectrum, for example, is vast, yet we perceive perhaps as little as .0000000000000000000000001% of it. We only taste 5 tastes and our sense of smell collects very little of the available spectrum of smells in the atmosphere – let alone the nearly infinite collection available to sea creatures that are unavailable to us (we don’t breathe that stuff well enough to “smell” anything underwater).
As for evolution, I can see some advantage for humans to be omnivores – we’re far less likely to starve to death than, say, a lion, who eats only meat or the deer that eats only certain plants. During tough times (the giant meteor strike kind of “tough times”), the more adaptable species are more likely to survive. Yet, even then, luck can play a part and even with great adaptability, species can die off. Basically, as I understand it, evolution favors the more adaptive – but there is no guarantee.
It’s just business.
The question may be “what is the business that is continuing to benefit some and destroy others?”