I think the fact that you have to do so much interpretation to make sense of what Kruse says is not a point in his favour.
You're right that neither McEwan nor Kruse are experts in genetics*. The difference is that McEwan knows she is not an expert, and therefore restricts her claims about genetics to what comes out of reputable scientific literature. Kruse apparently thinks he is an expert, and makes radical claims without the reputable science to back it up. In the words of Daniel J. Boorstin, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge".
Admittedly, I'm seeing this mainly through the lens of Melissa McEwen's blog, but I've never heard anything but skepticism, from any paleo blogger I respect, about Kruse's theories. For example, Paul Jaminet seems to tacitly admit Kruse is a crank, but refuses to directly call him out because he doesn't want to be unpleasant.
*But see Melissa McEwan's comment below. McEwan does have academical credentials in the field of genetics, which Kruse lacks completely, so far as we know.