Well, A 2006 report on global mortality rates [1] suggests that regardless of country, the average human does reach sexual maturity. It follows that fitness, amongst humans, isn't significantly affected by survival / longevity. After all, if we live to reproduce, then anything that sets in after that event is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint.
I could see that reasoning giving rise to the phrasing used in the article.
After all, if we live to reproduce, then anything that sets in after that event is irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint.
I imagine there are some people who reason that way, but they'd be ignoring the obvious survival benefits of having parents (and extended family) to help raise a child.
It doesn't follow that we aren't still evolving, only that there isn't sufficient selection pressure to push evolution in a particular direction. We're still evolving, just randomly in all directions. We're stocking up on mutations for the next round of selection pressure nature throws at us.
Despite the long-held view that natural selection has ceased to affect humans because almost everybody now lives long enough to have children
Uh, what? Do people actually think that?