Another possibility is that developing the next level of theory, and finding a way to simplify it mathematically, are two different steps.
As a human endeavor to have our brains predict things about the physical world, physics has to "run" on the human brain. In that sense, evolution shapes the physics that humans can conceive and understand. Evolution doesn't change what actually happens physically, so it doesn't affect physics that way.
Concepts, ideas, equations and models absolutely do change the world, in a very real and physical sense. They do not (probably) affect the fundamental laws of physics, though.
Another example are computers themselves. You can't build computers without computers, so they are already kind of building themselves, with us humans using as evolutionary slaves/hosts.
For an extreme example, see Wolfram's theory in New Kind of Science, a (controversial) hypothesis about how laws of physics evolve via cellular automata, simple programs producing complexity.
Even outside of this example, much of what we consider as "our universe" (macroscopically observable patterns and laws) evolved through micro-interactions. It was only last century that matter was discovered to be nothing special, just denser clumps of energy.
If you mean evolution in the strictest biological sense, i.e. a cat deciding to change the universal speed of light… unlikely. Though the connection between consciousness and physical world (objectivity, solipsism) is still a contentious and unsettled area.
An analogy would be psychology. The evolutionary path our brains took to develop to their current state is ... ugly. Why should things be different in physics?