From the book you link to: "All these hypotheses share one thing: the implication that the cognitive capability we call intelligence is linked with social living and the problems of complexity it can pose."
It's a long, long trip from "linked to social living" (which, duh) to "power is the basic evolutionary fuel". If power were really the big thing, we'd have a social structure and mating relationships more like elephant seals than parrots.
> Try killing a man and say that you are naturally violent.
Yes, that's my point. Your whole approach is a fallacious appeal to nature. You justify your obsession with power by saying that evolutionarily it's all about power. But what is natural tells us nothing about what it right.
Of course we are naturally violent, just like the rest of the great apes. Every toddler quickly decides that violence is a great problem-solver. We put a lot of effort into training them out of it and still don't do very well. Every human society has a history of violence. Every legal code deals with violence. And we do that because violence is natural but wrong.
As to the last bit, that looks like willful misinterpretation. His whole point is that he's not in it for the rewards, that those are mostly luck. As a fundamentalist, you can't of course credit his explanation, so to you it looks disingenuous. Because you only admit of one possible motivation, you take your interpretation as more proof of your obsession. It's the same routine that biblical fundies do. Something good happens? God be praised! Something bad happens? God is making us stronger through trial. Atheists? Well obviously they say those things because they hate God, so clearly they really do believe in God.
For them, it all comes back to God. For you, it all comes back to power. I hope you eventually get over it. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."