So I'm new to religion I have questions

Because humans do their best to be compassionate. And so do a lot of animals, BTW.

Evolution doesn't somehow become negated because people act to prolong the lives of folks who allegedly would bring the gene pool down.

PS your argument would also say there's no reason to be kind to gay folks and allow them "to live and breed". Or people born deaf. Or who wear glasses. Or have crooked teeth. Or ....

Religion is not the source of compassion. There are many who claim religion who have very little compassion for their fellow humans, there are many who do not who would bend over backwards to help someone. What you describe is eugenics. Look up "religion and eugenics" and you will find many links to help you understand how they interact.

The answer to this is 100%.

This is like someone born in Boston saying what is the chance that I was born in Boston. It is a fact that 100% of people born in Boston were born in Boston.

100% of people who live in our Universe live in a Universe that developed as ours did and all the people who live in a universe where life evolved as it did live in a universe where life evolved.

That doesn't prove anything. It isn't a good question.

Evolution isn't consciously guided by our thoughts. It is determined by our actions and by changing circumstances, which might result in positive or negative results for us and others. Humans may or may not have reached a pinnacle of evolution. We might progress further up the scale or we might go extinct. I personally view it as a fifty-fifty proposition.

Evolution is not necessarily a move forward, fish who live in caves are blind because there's no light. I think the ancestors who swam into the cave being able to see had an advantage over their descendants.

The Nazis were all about The Master Race, and they lost. On of the reasons they lost was because the Enigma code was broken in part by a load of misfits dubbed inferior by the Nazis.

This post seems to contain a wide array of questions/issues:

1) Did life come about by chance?
2) Why does life cause detriment by deviating from 'true' evolution?
3) Would diabetes be selected out of the human population if diabetics did not reproduce their genes into offspring and thus future generations?

For now, I will just speak to #3, because I don't think diabetes can be prevented by having 'good genes.'

I think that making good choices regarding diet, exercise, and lifestyle can either prevent diabetes from manifesting altogether or at least improve it.

Taking extra insulin to help extra sugar filter out of cells/tissues, through kidneys, and thus out of the body can be helpful, but it might also stimulate people to crave more sugar than they otherwise would naturally.

I also don't think insulin is the only thing that increases cravings by lowering blood sugar. When people eat lots of sugary foods, that may stimulate gut flora to metabolize sugar at a faster rate and thus cause you to crave more sugar sooner than if you were used to eating less sugar.

Of course, everyone has their own opinion but I don't think ending diabetes could ever be so simple as preventing diabetics from reproducing their genes to future generations. If that happened, there could still be a candy/soda/sugar industry and lifestyle culture in the future that seduced people into irresponsible sugar consumption and insulin resistance could still emerge in those 'more evolved' pancreases.

I don't think the pacreas can evolve to manage any level of sugar intake, no matter how high, and keep the body healthy regardless of how much sugar it is bombarded with.

This silly disquisition seems to assume that natural selection is a conscious process. That already sounds like religionist thinking. Natural selection only kicks in under environmental pressure. So long as there is no pressure on reproductive success, there is no reason for change to take place. When there is environmental pressure, those with the best prospect of reproductive success will, eventually, be the only members of a species to successfully reproduce.

It is clear that you are prime material for religious fanaticism. You're willing to see choices made about who may or may not reproduce based on assumptions--which assumptions demonstrate poor of no understanding of natural selective processes, and which are morally bankrupt.