The rabbit, etc.

Forgive me for asking something that has come up here but I didn't see you answer. What do you think is the preferred answer to the question of the rabbit and raising immigration? I will list some of the options known to me.
A. The identification of the rabbit with the hare, which engages in self-coprophagy (eating feces for the purpose of re-digestion), which can be interpreted in a certain sense as rumination.
Reference : There are several translations, mainly from the early days, that interpret this way.
Problems : Apparently there were no rabbits in our area until the arrival of the Romans who brought them from the region of Spain. And in general, why would the Torah bother to divide between 2 species that it probably would not have divided between and are not found in the area and not somehow mention the rock rabbit that was common and sometimes eaten? And if you say that this is the desired assumption (because the mustache
B. To say that the Torah really only refers to external signs and does not really refer to the structure of the stomach but only to the way of eating. Therefore, when it says "the ruminates," it does not mean it in the full anatomical sense.
Justification : It is known from the Gemara that there are internal signs of purity that the Torah did not enumerate, but rather only enumerated signs of identification, and as far as identification is concerned, it is done according to the exterior. Problems : Why confuse things for no reason? After all, this is a list of animals that are not eaten for another reason. Why emphasize that it produces bile when there is really no evidence for this?
third. Changing the accepted definition of ruminating – an argument that the term ruminating in the past referred to the external sign in general and this is the meaning of the term. A similar argument is that the Torah has renewed for us what it considers ruminating – in the Torah's view, the movements of the mouth and the structure of the skull are sufficient for this.
Justification : The Torah did something similar regarding the camel – in principle, the camel does indeed cloven hooves, but in a slightly different way than the pure animals, and therefore the Torah determined that it does not cloven hooves in order to clarify that, from its perspective, cloven hooves do not include the shape of the camel's hoof.
Problems : Here too, the question arises as to why confuse and not simply say that this is how rumination is defined. Theoretically, it could be said that the purpose of the Torah is not to be precise in scientific knowledge at all, but only to bring about optimal fulfillment of the mitzvot, but the question here is why confuse? Especially since, as I mentioned, there is no known NFPK for such a definition of rumination. Theoretically, if we find something that spreads a cloven hoof and makes mouth movements of rumination without actually ruminating, we could say that it has NFPK, but I don't know of such an animal.
D. To say that the Torah included in the rabbit also species of pika that resemble rabbits and among which there are some that engage in coprophagy.
Problems : It turns out that the definition of a rabbit is expanding a bit, especially to species that are also not found in our area.
E. The Torah did not come to renew scientific knowledge, no matter what. If everyone thought it was a moral issue, that is how it would treat it.
Problems : Why commit suicide over this principle like this?
 
Thank you very much.