This means the basic ontological step from experience to MIR, which thereafter quickly comes to override and obliterate everything preceding, in order to maintain the certainty which MIR is assumed to offer. The difference between the two versions of 'solipsism' is therefore great. Unless it is accompanied by an explicit discussion of its meaning, it is liable to be misunderstood to signify an absurd ontological claim. A term like 'phenomenology', which indicates the origin of mental content from experience, is probably less vulnerable than 'solipsism'. And also, in my opinion, using Vaihinger's term 'as-if' as applied to MIR is more precise than some other terms with a similar meaning such as 'language game', or 'irony', or 'illusion'.
Evolution is an objective science and is structured, like all knowledge, inside experience.
There is thus no conflict, but reduction of experience to this or some other objective findings is not possible. To try this means jumping tracks from experience to objectivity. But the presentational immediacy uses our previously constructed units to deal with ongoing experience, always subject to corrections as needed. This point I believe is the main difference between our views at present. But if we go back from the outside to the inside track, we don't know about that to start with.