As far as I can tell, the term "evolutionist" is not used within the scientific community. It does, however, seem to have found a home in the vocabulary of anti-evolution, creationist communities. This makes me suspect something of your political/spiritual philosophy.
Your use of the phrases "welfare society" and "mass healthcare" strengthen the above suspicion. You next suggest that the "welfare society" (which has been practiced by a small fraction of the global population for - what, four generations now?) might already have reduced the effects of natural selection.
First, let me opine that welfare societies and mass healthcare would not "reduce the effects" of natural selection, they would simply re-order the traits that were being selected for.
Second, let me respectfully suggest that you would benefit from a more detailed study on the topic of natural selection.
Lastly, I would encourage you to consider the evocative power of the words you use in your arguments. Because of your choice of words a lazy reader, or one who arrived at this thread with conflicting opinions, might write you off as a politically conservative creationist who does not understand some (or several) of the terms you are using. You would be well served by avoiding shorthand terms like "evolutionist."
You seem to have misunderstood my comment which is probably my fault due to unclear wording. Evolutionist was indeed a bad choice of word but in my defence over here in Europe the word "evolution" is really not that emotionally charged. I should have written "evolution researcher" or something similar.
Welfare society is a common expression to describe the model of post-1960 Western and North European societies. America is rather different but my understanding is that in many states there have are at least some measures in place to help people in need.
About "mass healthcare": here in Europe we have universal healthcare. That's not the case in America, however, regardless of its problems, healthcare is accessible to large portions of the American society, as opposed to other countries or historical times where only a very small percentage of the society has or had access to any form of healthcare. I don't think that this expression is a very bad way to describe that.
It's really nobody's business but to put things in context, I do believe that "welfare society", "universal healthcare" are very good things, and I would describe myself as a "non-believer" and a "European conservative".
I agree that with your opinion that these phenomena "re-order the traits that are being selected for" but I stand by my assertion that being able to compose Vitamin C is not one of those traits. In general, my understanding is that many genetic features in the past that put individuals at disadvantage are considerably less relevant today. Even in extreme cases where these traits make reproduction impossible these effects mean that individuals affected by them will be able to stay around and increase the survival chances of others in the family. Once again, I would like to mention that this is only my understanding and I am not qualified enough in these areas to make authoritative statements. However, I would consider myself to be as well-informed about these subjects as anyone in the general population cat get, having read numerous books on the subject aimed at the general population authored by scientists who are considered to be experts in the area. One of them is a well-known advocate of atheism these days which I personally think is a shame, I much preferred when he was "only" a very good writer of books about evolution.
In addition, I appreciate your constructive intentions but this kind of patronising tone is really not necessary.
Your use of the phrases "welfare society" and "mass healthcare" strengthen the above suspicion. You next suggest that the "welfare society" (which has been practiced by a small fraction of the global population for - what, four generations now?) might already have reduced the effects of natural selection.
First, let me opine that welfare societies and mass healthcare would not "reduce the effects" of natural selection, they would simply re-order the traits that were being selected for.
Second, let me respectfully suggest that you would benefit from a more detailed study on the topic of natural selection.
Lastly, I would encourage you to consider the evocative power of the words you use in your arguments. Because of your choice of words a lazy reader, or one who arrived at this thread with conflicting opinions, might write you off as a politically conservative creationist who does not understand some (or several) of the terms you are using. You would be well served by avoiding shorthand terms like "evolutionist."