How is it in total contradiction?

Death is necessary for evolution. Shorter lifespans mean more rounds of genetic mutation meaning evolution can happen faster.

I think overall the point is right but I'd a lot of nuance.

- The evolutionary ideal lifespan for any creature is certainly limited but asking about the potential is more of a biochemical question and somewhat orthogonal to evolution.

- Some creatures fill extremely long lived niches proving that at the level of cellular dynamics, longevity is certainly possible.

- Humans no longer really depend on evolution. We'll start genetically modifying ourselves soon and I'd be surprised if there weren't any gm people walking around already.

- Our biggest limiting factor is experimentation. These experiments take a long time and aren't ethical to perform on humans. We'll certainly figure out how to make immortal rats before people.

Evolution only evolves to evolve faster where that is itself an evolutionary advantage; likewise slower only when it’s an advantage. (Where there is no advantage either way you can get drift; also fitness is at a much higher level than a particular gene).

This is why we don’t have the 30-minute reproductive period of some bacteria.

Basically , if you ( the species ) live forever then how would expect the natural selection occurs? This underpins That you have reach the pinnacle and no can adapt in any kind of environment

“Not getting old” does not mean “not having offspring”, competition of slightly mutated offspring is what evolution is driven by.

And the expectation is that no ageing and no disease will give us a 50% chance of surviving any given (IIRC) 1000-ish year period, because accidents will still happen.

In nature, you still have predators and lots of diseases that limit lifespan even of those species which have biological immortality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality