[SIGH] Is suspect that I've got a god-squaddy (or someone who has been "educated" by god-botherers) here. But
Death happens whether or not there is evolution in your species, ecology, or whatever your experimental system is. You can have an evolving system and a non-evolving system with the same death rates (organisms dying per day, percentage dying per day, pick a metric) and the death [count or rate] will not distinguish between the two systems. Deaths are not a determining characteristic of an evolving versus non-evolving system.
Deaths are however a way of distinguishing between systems with living organisms and ones without living organisms. The death rate in a system with living organisms is not going to be lower (on the medium to long term) than in the system without living organisms.
Since you seem to be trying to make points straight out of the goddidit handbook, I'll be very explicit about the final step : what determines whether a population evolves is whether some blood lines have higher numbers of offspring surviving to reproduce than in other bloodlines. If there is that differential, then the population will evolve to be dominated by the faster-reproducing bloodline even if the death rates for the two blood lines are identical. If there is not that differential in reproduction, then there is no evolution in that population.
I suppose I could rebut you by asking for your example of a living system which does not have death in it. But that would leave the door open for you to take the goddidit's excuse that "I'm not a biologist", as if that were any sort of excuse for not learning about biology before making comments about it.