This is actually a bad analysis on the part of the author.
So, you put together some science and use research to try to cobble it together. When you're called on the research and it invalidates your theory, you reply that it's "a bad analysis" and "some kinks remain"? There are all kinds of questions after that. Why didn't you point it out? Why did you use bad research? Why do you believe you know more than a published author in a known journal? Etc, etc. Far too much to go into here.
Truthfully, your whole post seems like you tossed together a bunch of terms and scientific principles and hoped no one would really take the time to give more than a cursory glance at what you wrote. Now, that's what it seems like on my end. I really don't know what you're doing, I'm just saying what it appears like to me. I'm hoping that it's not the case. But I don't really want to get into "bad analysis" or "some kinks remain" anymore because, to me, it seems that it's mostly the bulk of your posts regarding IP/aiki.