I'm not sure what class of error this is, but it's a common reasoning mistake in discussions on evolution.

By your same logic, you could pick any species at all and call their traits "the winning strategy for long-term survival" as long as you live contemporaneously with them.

There are known species that don't seem to exhibit planned senescence--the naked mole rat is a commonly discussed example. Check the Wikipedia page for biological immortality[1] for more examples and info.

The article essentially claims that ageing is likely a result of interacting thermodynamic processes. If so, then without specific preventative measures, organisms will "age".

The discussion at this level is pretty hand-wavy. So without introducing more rigor, the best we can say is probably something like this: there hasn't been strong selective pressure in the past to develop anti-ageing strategies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

That's untrue, there are a number of biologically immortal creatures[0]. Most recently found being the naked mole rat.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

Exactly. Some tortoises as well can live a few hundred years, as well as wales, urchins, sharks, quahog clams, and as someone else mentioned– jellyfish.

Though you won't see any of them developing rockets and space-stations. To what extent that is an evolutionary advantage on our part I'll leave to general consensus.

There is a genus of jellyfish that don't die of old age because they can revert to juvenile form after aging:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

Looks like evolution has decided that time traveling through your farts is a bad strategy for long term survival.

All species that used the Time Travel flatulence method have disappeared.

How do you really know this to be fact? Perhaps it is simply something our cellular machinery can't "solve" or "fix"...

Emphasis is not exactly "can't", rather it is "has not yet"...