I even gave you a search term that did not require reviewing the thread: Lane.
You obviously haven’t read the few references you’ve cited. Even if you had, your approach is still rhetorical.
That’s likely why you ignored my question about how many papers from the primary literature you’ve read. The primary literature is the stuff containing evidence. One reads the primary literature by going through the figures and tables–the text is secondary. You keep mentioning evidence, but your approach suggests that you haven’t examined a single datum yourself.
All you’re doing is text, which is why I describe your approach as rhetorical.