Impressive and well done investigation. Your investigation truly shows the fact of evolution. Those who doesn´t fit, must be taken away. In other words only "the fittest survive"...
Well, not quite: that's a common misconception of evolution, where it's 'dummied down' into the slogan, "survival of the fittest".
This video goes over the difference between 'artificial selection' and 'natural selection':
The example provided by MadGiant above is an example of 'artificial selection', not 'natural selection'.
However, as the example of artificial selection in the video shows, traits that are selected for are quite obviously advantageous for the organism to possess, so the standard by which the individuals are judged is what is best-adapted to THAT given environment, and the standard is arbitrary (eg one Chihuahua breeder might select those that have a long-coat, whereas another breeder could select for those that have short-hair trait, etc).
Hence the more-correct statement is NOT "survival of the fittest", but "survival of those that fulfill the minimum criteria for whatever trait is favored".
If we're talking about natural selection, it would not necessarily be "survival of the fittest", but "survival of those organisms that are adapted to their given environment", where ALL, SOME, or NONE may survive to pass along their genes (i.e. the height of selective barrier is not fixed, but changes).
The DANGER of misunderstanding evolution is it can lead to arguments in favor of euthensia, and a resurrection of such attempts at cleaning out the human gene pool (eg Nazi attempts to create an uber-race of Aryans). Obviously Darwin's evolution has NOTHING to say about the immorality of such attempts at social engineering.
HOWEVER, such attempts at social engineering are not an invention of Darwin or as a result of evolution: as MadGiant's research shows, humans engaged in such activities millenia ago, being driven by a belief in Gods and demons used to explain the presence of birth defects.