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

You're saying that even though the chance of one member developing melanin is slim, the fact that there is a near infinite number in the population developing something and each member gets more than one chance, that melanin will inevitably be developed in time.No. Keep up with the analogy; Melanin is only one possible outcome out of an indefinite number of possible outcomes. Melanin, specifically, had a low probability of occurring in ancestral organisms. But because there are an indefinite number of possible outcomes, a outcome, that is an x-variable, is inevitable. I find it interesting that you understood the “you being born” analogy intuitively but failed to apply it to evolutionary principles.Consider what you wrote. “So the probability that "me" (Melanin as a trait) specifically was going to be born is like you said "improbable", but the probability that a child (a trait) was going to be conceived is so high that people (organisms) are having abortions (evolving) left, right and centre (at high rates… though the human population actually doesn’t reproduce that often relative to many other species…)!” So early on in the history of the universe, the development of something to help you survive is actually no joking matter. So no randomness.Its importance to survival is irrelevant to whether it was the result of a random event. But I'll say that Evolution is not random and neither is all the little processes no matter how microscopic.That’s not true at all. Genetic drift is quite random. If a family was on a cross-country trip, an asteroid hit their car, and they got into a fatal accident, that would result in drift. Allele frequencies in the entire human population would change because that gene pool was struck out of the record by some freak event. But, you have your hypothesis, go out and test it.It’s very easy to make claim after claim when you don’t have to support those claims with empirical evidence. In the arena of science every opinion isn’t equal. And right now, observations, data and testing tells us that we’re dealing with random phenomena guided by pressures. If you really think no component of evolution is random, then go out there and seek your data. Otherwise, keep the misconceived conjecture to yourself. So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it.Not necessarily. Remember, it is the selective pressures in the environment that determine whether or not any genes and subsequent traits will become more or less frequent in a population. A “response” to environmental change really only means that there are shifts in reproductive trends—some members of a population get to reproduce more than others, this shifts with changing environments and so does the distribution of changing genes in that population. Relating this back to the debate topic, the changing environment is of no threat to life on Earth because it will continue to evolve. Life goes on with or without the species that are endangered.True and not true. Evolution isn’t infinite in its changes. All species will eventually go extinct—whether through dead ends or the natural destruction of the planet by our sun or some other celestial object. And some life will continue to go on even in the absence of entire populations. But not forever as populations are interconnected. The impact of one population of life impacts, ultimately, all populations of life. And the topic of the debate is whether humans should do something about endangered populations. And I’ve already given my answer. Highlighting the problem of disappearing coral is a good example.