Well, precision is always a good thing. But in that case, given the ongoing conversation about this particular issue ... feel free to look back on this thread, or the other thread-
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?595433-Why-D-amp-D-is-not-(just)-Tolkien
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. If you wish to clarify it further, please feel free. Given that we have been discussing, at length, those things in D&D that "came from" and are "inspired by" and/or "influenced by" Tolkien, I don't fully grok your disagreement. I certainly don't understand your earlier point about 1e being better evidence than, say, OD&D, which you say you are unfamiliar with. Of course "D&D is more th{a}n OD&D," but no one would seriously argue that, inter alia, the 4e Ranger provides good evidence as to the origin of the Ranger in D&D. At least ... I hope not.
For example, saying that things change for design consideration reasons isn't that germane to the conversation. I can posit, with a good deal of certainty, that a number of illusionist spells (and the wording with regards to "shadow stuff") "came from" Zelazny, even though there would necessarily be game mechanics that are different; because literature is not a game. No one seriously argues that the spell system is not Vancian because "game mechanics" require the spells to be cast in a way that does not fully match what Vance wrote; instead, the influence is so obvious, that it's in the name (Vancian spellcasting system).
As already stated numerous times in these two threads, if someone is using the Ranger as their example to argue against Tolkien, something has gone seriously wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
...and I say that as someone who has spend no inconsiderable effort arguing against those who improperly ascribe things to Tolkien (IMO).