This may be true, but do you really think people choose their partners out of consideration for their genes? Theirs or their partner’s?
While I never mentioned anything about their being “superior”, yes, you could say they are superior qualities worth mentioning? (relativistically speaking).
Other than survival, generations of reproduction haven’t accomplished a better, more superior, individual. The weak still exist in great numbers. All humanity is doing is perpetuating the species, not improving it one bit.
And that’s kinda the point. Evolution isn’t supposed to be about improvement, just perpetuation. Maybe your beef with this is what man ought to do with himself–you know, the moral dimension–not simply the fact of natural selection. But then what counts as an “improved” mankind if not survival and fitness for the environment? This gets us into tricky waters because now we have to debate what passes as improvement and what doesn’t, a very subjective matter. This becomes more a discussion for political philosophy than natural/science philosophy.