It's only partly random circumstance.

Like with all life, such as the chance we'd meet here - along with non-random circumstances (ie. free-thinking truth-seeking purpose of SaidIt), and the universal fundamentals and systems (ie. SaidIt is a social media website - not plumbing or a spatula or an emotion). Similarly you need the chemical building blocks of life with random churning so over time many zillions of iterations build more complex that actually succeed, and on those established foundations can continue to build more and more complexity (ie. from RNA to DNA - or from cells to multicellular life to life with organs to life in social structures). This is not simply random, but accumulative - and IMO inevitable.

Adaptable means that life will survive somehow. If things get too hot or cold many will die, but those that can adapt will thrive. If necessary, obviously being strong is fine, but butterflies survive by their vast numbers - but may not due to pesticides. Unless they adapt to survive this toxic world.

A tornado is bad luck, as is a predator, or an active volcano in your region. If your species is only there, you will go extinct.

I wouldn't call humanity stupid - but I would call them average, and that's not great. The deceptive Machiavellian ruling class is a parasite that exploits the good nature and ignorance of the mass majority. It makes sense for them to have lots of children so they can pick the best of them to continue their power-legacy. And yes, they have so many so unworthy offspring, who can be useful in lower positions, all propping up the system they all vampirically depend upon.

Yes, most species have various ways of propagating healthy genetics, built-in and selective. I know it takes a lot of changed attributes to be categorized a new species, but I know little on this vast arbitrary topic.

The random DNA mutation theory makes sense, as does the idea that exogenetic expressions may be turned on by various factors (ie. nutrients, stress, environment, etc.), so why not both be viable - and more? Life is not simple. ("God" is.)

Only beneficial mutations (aka perfect evolution) is naive, simplistic, and stupid. I'd say you get good, bad, and simply different variations. Only over countless generations will you see who is more adaptable and better suited to surviving. I wouldn't call this "broke genes".

And those are not the mutations that you want for a new organ or process.

Or vaccine or lockdown.

Dinosaurs had eggs long before chickens existed - thus Chicken & Egg Problem solved.

All these genes and systems would need to develop to near perfection to work.

I disagree. Nature has built in copious redundancies and adaptive backup systems in most genetic code - because nature is messy and over millennia has evolved to compensate for that, along side all the other variables. Though, unfortunately like a combination lock, sometimes the odds line up to unleash genetic deficiencies or even calamity on individuals or family branches.

This is why many people think of some kind of a design system that helps the DNA-genes to work towards this goal.

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? ~ Arthur Jensen, Network (1976)

Personally I think that some life-consciousness system is using DNA as building blocks in some way.

If we are in a simulation, maybe, but I think a life-consciousness system is unnecessarily over complicating it. Perhaps it's ironic when I say, life is complex - but not unnecessarily complex.

However, I do admit that existence/life is "IMO inevitable", self-organizing and gaining complexity. To what end I can't imagine. Ray Kurzweil has some neat utopian theories in The Singularity Is Near but completely ignores negative aspects like the Zionist corruption for complete domination, actual environmental toxification and destruction, uncontrollable A.I. revolt, etc. that will usher in his SyntheticWisdom™ (my fictional step up from "smart" A.I.).

Without FOTPACH (fair, open, transparent, peaceful, accountable, consistent, honest) ethical management in all things, including politicized $cience, there's no way I can trust in genetic researchers who seem like a bunch of toddlers playing with matches and dynamite.

And it would be interesting to find out how that works, without religious or materialistic dogmas.

Indeed. There remains inevitably endless hard work to excavate through the corrupt $cience to find those elusive golden truths and to bring them to light.