Janes, it's not a matter of reasoning. It's a matter not being able to explain yourself clearly. You've provided no explanation of your own for why I'm wrong. You simply point to other sources. I don't actually know if you know what you're talking about or if you're just parroting others. I don't know if you do any of your own work or just blindly read and accept.
One problem with information on the internet is that one often does not know if it is reliable. Anyone can post anything. Although I do form opinions on my own, when posting I often like to back up my assertions with an authoritative source. Roger Clark has a PhD in astrophysics from MIT and works with planetary imaging for NASA. He does know what he is talking about. You might be better off if you would check out the accuracy of your statements before posting them.
Actually, you could use Dr. Clark's post to back up your original assertion. If you open up the aperture setting on your point and shoot to the same diameter (not f/number) as a dSRL or MFDB so that the same number of photons are collected and the image quality would be comparable (at least from photon counting statistics), the depth of fields would be the same.