>I have already highlighted enough facts of just how full retard evolution is but yet your dumbass thinks it only evolves to higher levels of existence.
I never made that claim at all. I claimed that if something was as destructive as they claim, and a relatively small genetic change, then it would be likely that those with the problem would have problems reproducing compared to those without the problem. It's called natural selection.
>Unless it immediately kills off the organism
Pro-mutilationfags claim that it does frequently kill the organism, or otherwise negatively impacts their reproductive health. And while I'm sure you know this, it's not that an organism would need to be "immediately killed," it's that an organism would need to be less reproductively successful, which is precisely what pro-mutilationfags claim. Now, a relatively bad feature could still spread through the gene pool if the change offers other benefits, and if fixing the problem is a relatively large genetic change, but shortening of the foreskin would not be a relatively large genetic change, and pro-mutilationfags claim it doesn't offer any benefits.
>it's even been theorized that the human development of consciousness is an evolutionary error that's proven more harmful than beneficial.
That would be a subjective judgement, since it clearly isn't judging purely reproductive ability, or more specifically, the ability for a gene to help more copies of itself exist, which is all that matters to the process of evolution.
>If evolution WAS NOT RNG, how does giving an animal the means to destroy itself by accident beneficial?
You're not talking about "an animal," you're talking about a species. Being intelligent has allowed homosapiens to drastically increase their population, because so many individuals have been able to reproduce far more than otherwise, which means so many genes have been able to reproduce far more than otherwise. As I'm sure you know, that is all that matters.