more pixels are better!

Graystar wrote:

Personally, I suspect that dynamic range depends on pixel size
instead of sensor size (i.e. the resized example above still won't
exhibit the same DR as the crop.)

In the end this comes down to science versus superstition. You have your suspicion, but not based on a rigorous process of reasoning or grounded in evaluation of hard evidence. If it were, the conclusion would be that DR ultimately depends on photons collected at an image level, and therefore is dependent on sensor size and efficiency.

But there appears to be evidence
that seems to support both views.

That is wrong, there is no evidence supporting the 'DR depends on pixels size' argument, because it is physically incorrect. What there is is a lot of anecdotes and poorly framed 'tests'. The physics says clearly that DR depends on sensor size and efficiency, I have never seen anyone, anywhere put forward any evidence that shows the contrary. The idea that a concept is valid because a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about say it is, is absurd. Even if some of those people are editors of popular web sites.

So my own personal jury is still
out on that one. But for noise, I'm in agreement with the those in
the high-MP camp who say it's sensor size that matters.

Well done, at least you got to the right conclusion in the end.