The fallacy is in the use of the word "evolved."

If you take a random sampling of ten thousand modern humans and scatter them across an undeveloped planet, what will happen is basically:

• The ones who live in horrific environments will barely manage to survive and fail to develop technologically.

• The ones who live in environments with plentiful game and foraging availability but with minimal agricultural potential will not perceive any pressure to drive innovation.

• The ones who live in environments most conducive to agriculture, with a harsh enough climate that saving food for the winter is a good idea, will eventually develop agriculture.

The selection pressures on technological development work orders of magnitude faster than the selection pressures on intelligence.