That is not part of the rquation. There is a balance in life, the weaker have mechanisms tha protect them. The strong do not aways win and it would not work if they did because they would wipe out their prey as well as their rivals. There have been few extinctions registered and most if not all are due to the interference of man.
You would make a good politician. Your spin may work for you but nit for me.
Lie I said aove thre is a balance in modern nature. Yes there is life and death wthin individuals and a weak animal may well die, but that is not the same as the evolutionary model. Evolution is looking at species not indidivduals.
Whether a balance could be achieved b Toe methodology is obviously a mute point. If ToE is correct then yes. but the preset state does not prove (or disprove) ToE.
Discussing specific "deviations2 or diseases does not change anything. By most viewpoints evolutions has slowed to a crawl at best and stopped atogether other than a few viruses or bacteria having to cope with humanity.
I am looking at the broad picture not any minutia. The principles behind ToE d not match (my view of) God. That is it.
IOW there has to be something that science has not identified to complete the picture. If it is not God then , fine, find something else, but as it standes ToE is incomplete., both philosophically and practically. (Although you refse to see the shortcomings.)
Richard