In a prior post lastyearon employs such a classic example of the strawman fallacy that I can’t resist putting it up for all to marvel at.
In the course of an attack of ID as disguised theism lastyearon writes: “Meyers: The origin of the gene can’t be explained by chemistry (i.e. must’ve happened supernaturally).” Meyers has never said anything like the statement in the parenthetical that is attributed to him. I defy lastyearon to provide any source for his statement.
As I said in the comment thread, when one’s opponents feel they must erect a strawman to attack instead of addressing the arguments one is actually making, that is a sure indicator that they have no response to the actual argument one is making (otherwise they would feel no need to erect a strawman).