Hey Mick, welcome to the forum.
I just scanned part of the review and I see it trotting out the usual propaganda tactics of omission and misrepresentation, just dressed up in the language (but not the logic) of science.
If I had been a reviewer of the manuscript, I would have probably rejected solely on the following line, following the tired old probability game:
A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4^999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20^333 possibilities.
Which is it? Meyer just gave two probabilities for the same exact situation, which is problematic as self-contradiction, and more problematic because neither is correct.
I also enjoyed his total misrepresentation of theories of origin of novel genetic information, starting with:
Indeed, mutagenesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism (for review, see Lonnig 2001). For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic.
Meyer might have something of a point if he hadn't ignored the fact that there are more than two scenarios. Specifically, he tries to refute novel genes arising from preexisting functional sequence by stating that the organism could not survive the alteration and thus loss of preexisting gene function. I guess Meyer never heard of genetic duplication events.
He also didn't bring up domain-level duplications and rearrangments, which have the capacity to rapidly create novel proteins.
While Meyer has references dotted throughout the review, he doesn't cite any evidence for his key assertions from which the rest of his argument follows. He repeatedly states:
New cell types require many new and specialized proteins.
Since he provides no reference for this repeated claim, I can only believe there is no evidence for it; that it is an argument from the obvious. Given the discussion going on in the thread
Cells into Organs: could it evolve?, it would appear that Meyer is incorrect, or at least drastically overstating his case.
Another silly tidbit:
Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.
He then goes on to argue for several paragraphs without further references that neoDarwinists have got it all wrong, since genetic information cannot code for pattern and organization. A bold argument considering it is founded on a single claim about proteins from a non-peer-reviewed book ...
There are other obvious errors of logic and omission in the review - maybe others can pick their favorite.
It is really too bad that the review passed "peer review".