St Augustine..One might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which they could be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a trial. The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reason- able. For all creatures, as long as they exist, have their own measure, number, and order.
Fr. John Echert : The food chain that exists among the animals is amoral, that is, it is not an issue of morality since an animal does not have an eternal soul created in the image of God. And so, even had there not been the sin of Adam or in the time prior to the original sin, animals may very well have consumed other animals in accord with the nature they were endowed with by the Creator. Man, however, would have been protected from such violence by a special grace, among those given to Adam and Eve which protected them from suffering and death and provided them a harmony with God, self, each other and nature. And while our first parents lost the preternatural graces they had been endowed with prior to their sin, so far as I know we would not say that their human nature was changed, though it was weakened and without the assistance of grace following sin. And it was only after the catastrophic flood that God allowed men to consume the meat of animals, though not the lifeblood itself.
*So, it isn't necessarliy the case that animal deaths prior to the Fall negate the truth of Original Sin while at the same time supplying probitive evidence for the Hexameron Thesis
So, it isn't necessarily the case that animal deaths prior to the Fall negate the truth of Original Sin nor does the amoral nature of animals eating one another necessarily make a positive contribution to the Hexameron Thesis.
It still is a poorly written sentence. I think I should just have an Anchor Steam beer and blow-up something. Happy Independence Day