There is nothing left to spit out. I can address some of your points but overall I will just be reiterating my original points over again from a different angle with more examples so you and others can understand.

First based off of the link above ecosystems are indeed in equilibrium.

Second even at an equilibrium things can still evolve. There is a concept called genetic drift where genes and culture changes within the bounds of natural selection. So imagine a local optima that involves a multitude of solutions that are equally optimum. Ecosystems and biological creatures who have hit this equilibrium can still evolve by oscillating among all the solutions in that local optima. The term is called genetic drift but the concept applies to topics outside of biology.

Third, natural selection is not strictly a biological concept. It has broader applications that most people are aware about on some level. Genetic programming is a popular example where the primitive s are not genes but computer instructions.

What people aren't aware about is how natural selection can apply to macro concepts and systems where the primitives aren't clear. Things like culture, civilizations and large systems and Anything that can reproduce and mutate are candidates.

There are multitudes of cultures and economies and systems of government that go through reproduction, death and mutation across huge timescales. Cultures that you see today are ones that survived from the past because they are the fittest.

Easter island involved a tribe and culture that overloaded. The culture was centered around status and over exploitation of resources resulted in that culture dying out and not being present today. All we have of that culture today is a "fossil record". Many cultures in the past have self imploded like a cancer and were naturally selected out. In the natural world you should see ecosystems that are in equilibrium because the systems in equilibrium are the only ones that can survive. Evolution at the macro scale can also have effects on the evolution of lower level biological systems as well.

Take for example the evolution of an efficient predator. Biological creatures tend towards greater efficiency but if a carnivore that is too efficient exists in an ecosystem it may kill everything and overload system. Hence most ecosystems have creatures that aren't necessarily the pinnacle of efficiency. Ecosystems where creatures are imperfect and just good enough to maintain equilibrium within the system are what you tend to see.

For humanity in my personal opinion we are currently on our way to overloading the world. Aspects of what we are culturally and biologically will eventually be culled in a selection process that will arrive in the far future.

I'm also not talking out of my ass. This stuff is really studied in academia. See below.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7782

Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow.