No, actually, dynamic languages cannot handle this even theoretically. See halting problem: No realistic amount of introspection is going to automatically tell you where negative_position is defined in the second example from TFA, because method_missing can do literally anything to decide what method names it does and does not handle. And Smalltalk's #doesNotUnderstand: works exactly like that.
You are confusing dynamic typing vs static typing with run-time execution vs compile-time execution.
A statically typed language can do arbitrary stuff at run-time too that will not be amenable to static analysis. This has nothing to do with the type system.
Furthermore, a dynamic language can be perfectly amenable to static analysis. For instance, in lisp+slime, slime-who-calls can identify callers of a particular function, even when grep would not, e.g. if the function was invoked via a turing-complete macro. The key thing here is that the AST to be analyzed does exist at compile-time; it just happens to be generated rather than hand-coded.
In practice, you can add a sprinkle of static to your dynamic language, adding a preprocessor that requires declaration of method_missing patterns that are acceptable to the application.
