Yes, the way it is set up, there is no conflict, but this scenario has nothing to do about real life and nothing to do about survival of the fittest. Climbing mountains has nothing to do about how real people live real life and survival of the fittest as defined by Darwin as the result of the struggle of members of a species for scarce resources.
Instead we need to examine how modern humans interacted with the Neanderthals in Europe during and after the Ice Age. I do not think they killed them off, but they did apparently squeeze them out because they were better adapted to the environment.
While doing research on the internet I came across this theory on a Smithsonian website: Environmental variability hypothesis: The hypothesis that adaptation to a variable environment, rather than a static environment or directional change, has characterized human evolution. It is a non-survival of the fittest natural selection model which seems to have much promise.
As I said Darwin defined natural selection as survival of the fittest in the Origin and said it was based on the struggle for survival. The problem is that this hypothesis has never been proven, although the statistical basis for it has not been disputed (although it does not follow.)
Dawkins, the defender of Darwinian fundamentalism, defends survival of the fittest. and many others seem to follow him, while others use the term without its meaning substituting chaos for science. BioLogos seems to follow Dawkins separating it from promising research that is going on as mentioned above. This is why we need to study natural selection instead of being satisfied with the status quo. .