This isn't correct and is a common misconception about evolution. The process which does this is natural selection, and it only occurs through the organism being unable to reproduce as well as an organism with beneficial evolutionary changes.
With humans in the modern world, there is no natural selection because of state benefits that keep people alive and able to reproduce who would usually be unable to do so in a world without safety nets.
So in the modern world, any evolution in humanity - either positive or negative - will perdure. In effect we've ended the traditional form of evolution ages ago when we became civilized.
Anyway, by all means, continue smoking if you think it's going to give you some sort of superpowers or immunity that you can pass on to your progeny. Most likely it'll just give you a disease.
So, the mutations discussed in the article have nothing to do with evolution, because they are somatic, and not passed on to offsprig. But even if smoking caused germ cell line mutations, it's also important to note that "highly evolved" is a mostly nonsensical phrase that has no real meaning, and there is absolutely no guarantee that any individual germ line mutations would confer a selective advantage to the off-spring- in fact, the majority of the time, specific mutations are neutral or harmful. Thus, even if smoking did increase the mutation rate in the germ line of a smoker, any given smoker kid would probably just have more problems than benefits. And because mutation rate is (maybe this is somewhat controversial) a phenotype that can and has evolved into itself, changing it artificially through smoking would likely result in a net reduction in "evolvability" as it has been called. Anyways these are all long term (and I mean LONG) population level effects and have nothing to do with individuals being "more evolved".
Just trying to make the point that the original assumption was three times removed from a sound understanding of evolution and showed some pretty big misconceptions.
