No, I followed the link. I am not as stupid as you to not understand the link did not discuss criticism of the actual study but was about political issues relating to the paper's publication. Big difference you are clearly not bright enough to understand. Buts that's OK. You're special in your own way, I'm sure.
You followed "the link", eh? There were "linkS", plural, Einstein. Try the other one and you'll see plenty of "criticism of the actual study".
I'll accept your apology any time you're ready, dunderhead.
Provide a serious criticism of the methods and approach.
Not some web site. And even that wasn't a comment on the methods. It was a comment on not citing or accepting other published articles.
First off in this article-- what were the methods?
Can you or anyone tell me what the article was about?
It's not really an article, its an essay. I also read the "criticism" from the web site. It's not so much a criticism as a rebuttal.
The Meyer article really was pretty much the same ol same ol and so was the "criticism."
Since it is not a study and is more an essay there isn't all that much method to criticize. The criticisms thus are the same ol same ol. It comes down to one side saying this is how they see it and the other saying I don't see it that way and you are wrong and stupid and have no right to talk or say anything because you are stupid.
To the extent that method was presented, such as the section on "amino acid space" the criticisms did not address or criticize Meyer's methods. They criticized his analogies and assumptions, e.g. the analogy to human written language. The criticizers also criticized the writer for not citing what they felt he should cite. Yet their comments were not directed to what the writer was trying to say. They pointed to articles about gene shuffling and modifications of existing genes whereas the writer was not addressing that issue.
This is what I note of these "debates". To the extent that the sides try to argue science, they talk past each other.
The conclusion is that no one here has said anything about Jame's Lake's article and have chosen to focus on a meaningless "debate" regarding differing religious beliefs.
These threads and the subject in general remains bald men fighting frantically over a comb.