“It is well known fact that with evolution, the octopus lost the nostrils and took on the more familiar look that we know today. If you still look closely you can see ah, a little bump where the nose use to be.”
Fact?
You are mistaking fact with theory.
I find nothing troubling about the theory or idea you presented. I think hypothesis is the best descriptor.
Now, how do you determine it is true?
What do you predict you will find in a given data set yet to be obtained that will confirm or contradict your hypothesis about the evolution of octopi nostrils?
Provide your experimental design.
I base this on the observations of a highly respected marine biologist.
It may have been a Seinfeld quote.
also complicated by the fact that macro-evolutionists embrace the idea that some important mutations may well have been one-in-a-million “lucky” mutations. it’s not science if it’s not reproducable by the scientific method. macro-evolutionists use this loophole to exempt themselves from the strict rules of the scientific method. funny how that works, huh?
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/accidents-human-evolution/
You are mistaking fact with theory.
I think you might be mistaking sarcasm for, well, you know.
Hoss