Otherwise you end up having to debate whether people with lactose tolerance are more evolved than people without, and so on. It gets messy.
Also, the history of eugenics. Autistic people have been sterilized and institutionalized, really quite recently. So I'm allergic to talk about people being more or less evolved.
Personally, I am not big on better/worse, but just different. E.g., we could look at white people as a weird mutation of true humans, one shockingly prone to skin cancer. Of course, as a white person, I'd rather see myself as an equally valid kind of human.
For a while I've been wondering what the DSM would look like if non-neurotypical people were in the majority. If we had a diganostic category for what we now call "normal" levels of sociality, selfishness, manipulation, violence, etc.
Interestingly, I think a good chunk of the diagnosis would be the autistic equivalent of what normal people call psychopaths. They'd be seen as irrational and dangerous, esp in groups.
This was a problem for the Autreat conference. It was made by autistics for autistics. The coordination required to create it was a big problem. I wonder if things would get better if they were the norm. I'm not sure.
Very well could be.
So, I've always thought of us as the next thing after homo sapiens. Jokingly call it Neosapiens from a cartoon as it was a cool name. Not likely to actually happen but a nice example of how the world might have been better. My ideal one, though, preserves the different types of people with two modifications: built-in mechanism where causing harm to others makes individual experience personal pain; built-in need to connect outside local sphere to reduce isolationism. These two would keep world more interesting than the safe, autistic one while also eliminating many problems. Just two, small changes in the brain.