Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

You're still making the 2 unlikely assumptions I mentioned.No. I'm not. I am not assuming that we have a near infinite number of chances, nor am I assuming that randomness kills. You have explicitly stated the latter apropos of nothing on my end, and the former is the direct result of your own hypothetical situation (Russian roulette). These are most certainly your assumptions. Don't try to lay them off on me.Randomness almost certainly guarantees no more Evolution, but here we are, so it wasn't random.I don't see why it would. Genes replicate imperfectly and at different rates. The locations where this imperfect replication occurs is unpredictable, the effect this imperfect replication has is also unpredictable, and what kind of imperfect replication occurs follows the same unpredictable pattern. But the fact that we are here suggests you are wrong.It's important that you see that it wasn't random.Approximately 130 mutations occur in humans before birth. I'm going to wager that the human zygote wasn't making plans on what was happening to him/her. Another 30 mutations (average) will occur between birth and death. You will go through the rest of your life never knowing where the mutation will take place, what kind of mutation will happen and how it will impact you or your kids (assuming you will have kids or already do). Why is it that the CCR5-delta 32 mutation occurred in Europeans 700 years-ago and not Africans where the selective pressure for its benefit is at its ultimate peak right now? Why isn't it present in Africans at all? You'd think a resistance and in certain cases immunity to HIV would benefit the people most under its pressure. What about mutations that increase LRP5 function leading to supernaturally high bone density in one family in the absence of any selective pressure? Why one family instead of two or three, or ten million families? And the anti-mysotonin duplication mutation that occurred in one German child, giving him excessive muscle mass? Did he plan on that just as the sperm met the egg, or when gestating, or just as they were born?These are rhetorical questions because I know you don't have the answer. And I'm really no longer interested in your opinion and conjecture. Shit happens. And this kind of thing is happening all around the world in humans and every other species all the time. Traits are rising and falling, gene frequencies shifting every minute of every day. The reason why it doesn't kill us is because most of it has a neutral impact, and the disadvantageous results are weeded out while the good ones are kept.My opinion is born of general observation and knowledge.Have you ever observed cells or genes in the lab across generations? Have you ever reviewed scientific literature on the subject you're currently debating? Have you been sufficiently educated in evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, population genetics? If your answer to these questions is no, then I follow with what "general" observations have you made about genes and what general knowledge do you think you actually have about this subject? From what I can tel, you're overstepping your knowledge boundary, which is why you can only opine.