That's like saying we'll never build a device that moves faster than we can run because evolution produced perfect locomotion for us. Or that we'll never be able to communicate further than we can yell, because evolution produced strong lungs for us.
There are plenty of cases where evolution failed. Allergies for instance... our own immune system reacting quite imperfectly to a harmless substance. That doesn't sound like pinnacle of evolution perfection to me.
There is a time that science wins and a time that natural things win. What if science added those antibodies to the formula? What about people who are unable to breast feed.
Allergies are a good example, because as far as I know, they exist mostly in our civilized society and from what I remember, mainly those suffer from it: who were not (enough) breast feeded and were kept in a sterile area as a kid and not in the mud outside.
But in general, yes, we can and could improve with technology on many things. But mostly only things we understand. A car is a very, very simple thing, compared to our bodies, our digestion system, immune system, cell growth ... And our bodies need very complex "material" to grow, as adults not so much, as babies. And mother milk is optimized and can dynamically change to adopt to the need of the baby. It was blind arrogance and yes, profit thinking, to assume a simple formula is better.
I fully agree. My point just being that declaring evolution the victor because "of course, it has had more time" is clearly not always the case.
But even aside from allergies, there are plenty of examples of doing things better than evolution. "I just leave ticks on my body, because hundreds of millions of years of evolution means my body will know how to get rid of them better than I could."
Trains and telecommunications are auxiliary; you walk to the train station and you talk into your phone. For breastfeeding it would be akin to using technology to aid the process, e.g. breast pump, refrigeration.
Allergies are likely an example of our ever evolving physical world, within a few generations the developed world has gone from days spent toiling in the fields to the sterile existence of modern cities, moving from one air filtered compartment to the next.
You may find the hygiene hypothesis interesting - the theory that the incredibly sharp rise in allergic diseases in developed countries is due to no longer being exposed to the types of bacteria that we had during most of evolution.
One example is that allergy rates in Finnish Karelia are much higher than right across the border with Russia, even though the populations and environment are otherwise very similar.
When you're thinking that science won sometimes it's nothing else but a sponsored think-tank and a big marketing campaign that made you think so. Just saying.
There are plenty of cases where evolution failed. Allergies for instance... our own immune system reacting quite imperfectly to a harmless substance. That doesn't sound like pinnacle of evolution perfection to me.
There is a time that science wins and a time that natural things win. What if science added those antibodies to the formula? What about people who are unable to breast feed.