Getting to the point:

5. Sound is a vocal gesture.
6. Gesture is made of identity (shape) of gesture and meaning of gesture.
7. Different sounds are made of different vocal gestures.
8. Hence different sounds have different meanings.

5. No, a sound is a sound; a gesture is an expression through motion.
6. Makes no sense; a sound is made of sound.
7. More nonsense; different sounds are different
8. Hence sounds are different.

You are making circular and redundant arguments; none of which is any proof whatsoever for any of your fragile hypothesis.

My hypothesis predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words.

Then it is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes

No, it doesn't. It postulates semantic values for sounds and phonemes.

This conversation has been going in circles for *literally* years now. To be very blunt, I'm not sure what you want from us. You will not find professional linguists willing to support you on this.

Your methodology is fundamentally unscientific and incompatible with modern linguistics. You have been told that in dozens of different ways. What you choose do with that information now is your choice. There's really very little more that any of us can say at this point.

Respected MalFet
If you intellectuals are not interested in the discussion, I will close the discussion. Please let me answer to the pending queries.

As Corybobory said, “the sound 'dog' is arbitrary in that it has nothing to do with the concept of dog, other than a speech community has agreed that this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. I know that ‘concept of dog’ cannot be defined, but we can explain as how the speech community has agreed that “this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. When we say that “this sound represents that conceptual meaning”, we are acknowledging the relationship between sound and meanings. You do not agree with it. O.K. But I am agree with it.
I have a theory by which we can convert biological electric impulses of sounds into feelings. This is what our psychological mind is doing. I make out a model, which is capable to represent all types of feelings. I allot different groups of phonemes to different parts of model.  I divided each group in three parts. Nasal sounds for desire and the future, voiced sounds for the past, and the unvoiced sounds for the present. What is the proof of correct allotment? I have a long list of circumstantial evidences, but related to psychology and philosophy; it was no sense to discuss the same in this forum. There are many things which can be proved with spectrograms, but all are related with philosophy.
Now why do I keep giving the examples using words?
 (1). this is the only way to check the correctness of semantic values assigned. 
(2). I am just explaining that WHY “a speech community has agreed that this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. I was trying to explain the ‘conceptual meaning’, which has been agreed by the speech community at the time of formation of the word. The selection of word is not fully ‘arbitrary’, it has association of feelings of speech community. And the feelings are governed by phonosemantics. I was trying to clarify that if you apply the semantic values assigned by me, you can easily achieve that ‘conceptual meaning’ of the word.
I do not agree that my hypothesis contradicts current ideas about historical linguistic that are well evidenced and explored. I have checked it up to large extent.
One more thing I want to add here that the sequence ‘gl’ as mentioned by you as exception, I have explained more than 50 sequences in my new book.
This is my last post. I thank you all for interest shown in my subject.

My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words.

OK, now I see the theory. What evidence would be required to falsify it? If it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

Please explain me that how we have reached to the conclusion that at the time of formation of the words, the speech community had agreed on sound  /bɒg/, to represent  “a body of water”, but not to represent  “clarity of acceptability of resistance / bond” (this explanation supports all dictionary meanings of BOG). 

Because dictionaries and English speakers would say "body of water" or "thing that is like a pond" or "wet place", but NOT your abstract (and I think inaccurate) meaning. Your "meanings" are like fortune cookies-- they apply to any word if you look at it the right way.

what will happen if a word is made of single sound. Will it carry a meaning or not?

Yes. Morphemes (including or building words) have meanings. For example, /z/ in English means plural, as in "dogs", but onlyn in that one particular usage, not more generally in the language. Morphemes, whether one sound or more, have meanings. The sounds themselves do not. And those particular morphemes are not just sounds-- consider also /z/ used in 3SG present verbs-- "jogs" and "dogs" sound alike, but they have very different suffixes!

With your permission, I want to make a correction. In my view “If it is not falsifiable, it MAY not a scientific theory”. We cannot deny the possibility.

Hahaha. That's hilarious. Please look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

If nothing is explained, the hypothesis is false.

We have told you: nothing is explained. You don't agree, but we believe this is true. There are two possibilities: 1) your theory is unfalsifiable (because you deny the evidence against it), or 2) your theory is false. Time to move on.