How?
I would demur at “impossible”, I’d say rather “highly unlikely”. But then I’d also it’s highly unlikely that a plumber “have a scientific insight” – as a plumber, like an apologist, is not focused on " immers[ing] themselves in the science with any depth".
Is there a reason for this vacuous piece of baiting? Given your carefully context-free original comment, I feel exactly zero interest in what “reasoning” you’d “be proud of.”
I don’t think you understand what a ‘conclusion’ is. 
If you want a “specific critique”, then read the whole review.
Why don’t you read the review, rather than sealioning.
Yes, like all ID apologists, Meyer has just enough scientific knowledge to make his arguments sound sciency to his scientifically-illiterate target audience, but not nearly enough to come even close to convincing the scientific community of their claims.
Is there some relevance to his question? I would suggest that most here either (i) possess considerably more scientific knowledge than Meyer, or (ii) disavow any claim to have any particular scientific expertise.
Then please do articulate it. 
Your repeated bare bald assertion of it is getting somewhat tedious.
Given that I never suggested such a standard, and would doubt that Meyer’s misrepresentations are honest errors, I would “conclude from that” that you are simply throwing red herrings in my path.