The point is moot. TOE predicts that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct. Then what we can do is speculate as to why some species do survive and sometimes we can explain it if not in most cases. This is not direct evidence for evolution but it is not evidences against it either.
I think the point of the thread is that no matter the result evolution explains it. If it stronger - evolution explains it. Likewise if it weakest - evolution explains it. The way TOE is proven is that is assumes it is the explanation of everything. By the basis of the assumption you can not disprove evolution and likewise evolutionist can explain everything. TOE proves itself based on the assumption that "evolution proves everything" which is circular reasoning.
On the other hand if we would find a species that would clearly have an unambiguous disadvantage, say needs ten times the food than another species all other traits equal, that would be evidence against evolution. Present that kind of evidence and you may sway me...