Does it not illustrate that the person making the assertion either hasn't considered that their explanation is not necessarily exhaustive (in fact, as opposed t

Does it not illustrate that the person making the assertion either hasn't considered that their explanation is not necessarily exhaustive (in fact, as opposed to according to current theories within a popular, not entirely genuine/consistent in behavior at this point in time ideology), or would like you to believe that it is? If there is a way to prove it is necessarily exhaustive, I would like to hear it.