But Ockham's razor tells me I'm right.
_probably_ right. Wikipedia: "Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable." [1]
You're quite right to note it's heuristic nature, some people use it as if it's truth generating.
This doesn't explain the huge number of nocturnal animals that sleep during the day and are active at night.
Seriously though, the existence of nocturnal animals kinda puts that argument to bed. While there might be selection pressure to specialise within day or night cycles, it's simply not plausible that no animal, in the vastness of the biospehere, has not generalised to do both, without some critical and fundamental flaw.
Point in case, bats as my primary example seem to be pretty archaic, with highly developed specializations, but nothing really highly developed. Which I see as an expression of the low entropy in the dark (the signal to noise ratio for sound is rather good at night though). Deep see animals are mostly outliers inhabiting a niche, as well. Whereas people as the highest developed species, if I may say so myself, don't even quite get along with crossing the day-night boundaries, I don't see your argument at all. You are rather proving the point.
Predators which hunt at night occured later (another heretic thought).
I'm curious why you keep presenting your opinions as extreme outliers when they aren't particularly outside mainstream scientific thought?