You tried to justify the mistreatment of animals by humans based on the fact some animals die in gruesome ways in the wild.
As you alluded to humans are part of the natural world so I was asking if, based on that logic, you find it justifiable to harm humans because they also die in gruesome ways in the "wild".
I suspect your answer is "no" and that you are similar to so many other people who consider humans to be a special case, that exists both outside and inside of nature depending on the point you want to make.
Your comment about humans evolving as part of the food chain and eat meat is a perfect illustration if this.
You claim it is OK to eat meat because we evolved to be part of the food chain, fine. But we didn't evolve to have meat at every meal or have a choice of pork, chicken, fish, beef, lamb, venison, etc available to us 365 days a year.
Our intelligence allowed us to escape the usual barriers nature imposes on populations and grow far beyond what is naturally sustainable or desirable. As such, we should have been using our intelligence to find ways to feed the population sustainably and in balance with nature. Instead we have exploited and decimated the planet to indulge a small portion of the global population's taste preferences, to the detriment of both the planet and developing countries.
If you were advocating for a return to more natural ways of raising and consuming meat I'd agree with people eating meat, if you want to hunt, kill and clean your meat fine by me (so long as it didn’t result in the decline of the species you wanted to eat). But justifying industrial scale animal agriculture on the basis that "humans evolved to eat meat" is just wrong.