Human ingenuity may be just as natural, but it's benefits are still notably different to adaptations gained via genetic success stories. In evolutionary adaptations, the changes themselves and the benefit gained are inherently linked - a creature develops wings which allow it to fly, an octopus develops the ability to blend it to its surroundings itself which allows it to hide, a giraffe's has a long neck which enables it to reach tall leaves etc. There may be situations where reaching tall leaves isn't actually beneficial (eg in a field with no trees), but the benefit of being able to do so will always exist with a giraffe with a long neck.

​

This isn't really the same with human intelligence and ingenuity, which has a much more diffuse relationship between the driver and the outcomes much of the time (and certainly in most of the cases in which people specifically survive when they wouldn't normally, rather than simply elongating or improving their existence). For instance, human ingenuity means we're able to synthesise insulin for the benefit of diabetics, but my possession of human intelligence doesn't allow me to spontaneously create insulin in the middle of a field. I can't cross a furious river simply because humans are capable of building bridges, or survive a fall because we can build parachutes.

​

Case in point, we know that people 10,000 years ago were no less intelligent or ingenious, yet lived lives far more ravaged by 'natural selection' than we do today. We benefit from a huge accumulation of knowledge, skills, relationships, transportation, standing-on-shoulder-of-giants research, supply chains etc any parts of which could be potentially be taken away. So the fruits of our ingenuity are huge - leading the OP to ask his question - but if all the libraries and servers were burnt down tomorrow we'd potentially see ourselves back to the living standards of 10,000 years ago, eschewing these huge benefits in a way the giraffe and his long neck don't really have to worry about.