> Once human industry kicks in it necessarily frustrates the Darwinian
> 'survival of the fittest'.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Darwinian notion of evolution, and Darwin never used this phrase to describe evolutionary processes (the social Darwinist hack Herbert Spencer coined the odious term). With all due respect, it's clear that you don't understand the basic principles of evolutionary theory.
>
> Medical science would only be the most extreme example of the way that human
> society favours the life and reproduction of individuals that would in a
> natural state, not survive. Not to put too fine a point on it, something
> like nine tenths of the species simply would not be with us, but for
> industry. That means that the majority of the species owe their biological
> existence to nurture, not nature.
Sure, but that's irrelevant your claim. Nine-tenths of us could disappear if a virulent incurable disease rapidly infected the world's population. Would that be evidence that evolution is irrelevant? Similarly, demonstrating that sociocultural factors can extend life or the number of people on the planet is not evidence that evolution doesn't matter anymore; it just means that evolution can't explain everything.
Moreover, as andie will be quick to point out if he's monitoring the thread, the nature/nurture dichotomy is tired, simplistic, and misleading. All notable human characteristics are produced by the complex interaction of genetic instructions expressed in varied environments. Is it impossible to assess the discrete impact of "nature" or "nurture" on most important human characteristics. --My advice: get thee to Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory!
Miles