It renders predation on you maladaptive, because the predator doesn't get back the energy expended in hunting, so over time it does actually make you less likely to get killed.
Evolution is directionless and unguided. It's not like a startup, under the guidance of humans, pivoting for a niche market.
But historically, when one aspect of the ecosystem goes unchecked, something usually comes along to take advantage of plentiful biomass, one notable exception being humans.
If there's a world of untapped food, this exceptionally rare behaviour would rapidly become advantageous, especially when the prey isn't adapted to the unusual predator.
Evolution has no guide, but all evidence shows it evolves into almost every available niche and quite specifically that any large available resource will be tapped.
Again, evolution is still unguided and to assume that something will evolve into an open niche is a gambler's fallacy.
Convergent evolution, and history argue against you. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently 60 times. There's no guarantee it will, and I'm not arguing it will. However, the weight of evidence argues that if there's a readily available niche it is a matter of time.
If you argue I won't win the jackpot, you're likely right - in fact I'd put money on my probability of losing. However, if you argue no one will win the jackpot in the next 100 years you're an idiot.
Quit projecting and just stop already, electromagnetic. You can't even bow out and admit you're wrong gracefully, so you skip straight to name calling.
Bravo.
I didn't intend to refer to you personally as an idiot, but turing a phrase however that appears very lost on you.
I'm certain you're just intentionally being a troll, because you're unwilling to make a single basis of an argument or even support your reasoning and can't even use your terms correctly, and now you're attempting to bait me with condescension.