Yes: but for how long?

You appear to be assuming a managed catastrophe with regards to environment change-- but history shows that there have been cases of severe and sudden changes that overhauled the balance of life. Ergo, punctuated equilibrium.

Dinosaurs were highly viable once, too. I'll be that they even had intelligence potential.

And don't forget that across the spectrum of animal life on earth, the majority of DNA is shared. We don't have a monopoly on mutable genes.

If the planet was abruptly and totally flooded by some means, we're gone. Poof. Why? Because we currently have no ocean-dwelling cultures. (note: I don't believe the biblical flood covered 100% of the planet's surface). In this scenario, dolphins win. We had our shot.

There is evidence of a population bottleneck tens of thousands of years ago. DNA statistically suggests that we were down to 5000 individuals. That was just enough for mankind to survive. A little less, and we would not have had the population depth to make it. So a handful of lucky global catastrophe survivors in wetsuits or space suits aren't gonna cut it.

Hey, I want us to keep going too! I just don't believe we are the automatic end-all, be-all. I believe that the only thing keeping other species from advancing is us: apes, elephants, octupii, whales and dolphins all exhibit the potential to evolve further. But we prevent it. Knock us down a peg or two, and THEIR DNA takes advantage.

Evolution personified would have been stupid not to have a backup plan.

I do believe there is a forward pressure on DNA to ensure intelligent life in spite of entropy. What that force is I have no idea. But I get the feeling it really doesn't care what form that intelligent life takes, as long as it can observe the cosmos. JMHO.