Darwinism Conundrum

[Anonymous No.8259355]

Good morning or whatever. I, for lack of a better term, am a Darwinist. I'm not an "expert" on the subject, but it's something that I'm rather fascinated with, read a large amount of material about, and study individually during my spare time.
Anyway, recently I've stumbled across a couple issues and inconsistencies with the Theory of Natural Selection, that I hope y'all can help me sort out or find a solution to, that still keeps the Theory of Natural Selection intact (or perhaps even invalidates/alters the theory).
If the Theory of Darwinism holds true, then, technically speaking, our species should have excessively rare occurrences (if at all) in which a member of our species acquires some sort of genetic ailment with a 100% mortality rate (note: the ailment in question must be 100% fatal without modern treatment options, genetically acquired, and the onset of the ailment must come to fruition at a relatively young age (i.e. Before sexual maturity), in order for this to be a valid objection/logical gap to Darwinism; anything lower than a 100% mortality rate, or any genetic ailment that materializes itself, on average, significantly after the age of human sexual maturity, gives the sufferer of the given ailment a chance to reproduce, and thus, adequately explains why these ailments are still present).
However, as I'm sure many of us have noticed, there are still frequent occurrences of genetic diseases and ailments with early onset ages that, without modern treatment options, would be a death a sentence for whoever was unfortunate to receive them. An example of this would be Type I diabetes. It has a 100% fatality rate without the manual administration of insulin, and it's average age of manifestation is 14; an age that is typically too low to be associated with consistent reproduction in humans. There are other examples of this, but for the sake of brevity, I think I'll just leave it at that. What do you think /sci?

[Anonymous No.8259361]

All girls should be spayed at birth.

[Anonymous No.8259367]

>>8259361
Thanks, man. You fucking nailed it.

[Anonymous No.8259401]

What a wall.

[Anonymous No.8259467]

Type-1 diabetes is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. So, just because you have the genetic makeup of having the potential for Type-1, doesn't mean you'll get it which is why the trait hasn't been weeded out of the population.