Thank you for your comment I will answer a few key points.
"...it seems it still assumes that evolution is driven by mutations in the DNA, whether it would be through random alterations as most biologists still would believe or as some kind of addition of extraterrestrial gene sequences as you are exploring"
Evolution is the overall process of change in organisms over time, while there are more than one mechanism at play, the organism does not change with modification to the information (DNA code). This is not assumption but scientific certainty. Nothing new can emerge from the same configuration of DNA coding in the genome. If you see a way to counter that feel free to explain.
"I think finally also academic biologists are starting to move away from this view for the simple reason that the sequencing of genomes are not consistent with its premises."
No, I can say that academic biologists are still very much aligned with genetic changes giving rise to the evolution of organisms. I follow the topic closely and there is no sense this has changed, there may be a small number with divergent views somewhere.
"In fact, all animals seem to have approximately the same number of genes, 20,000, whether we are studying humans or nematodes or to something in between and this obviously does not make sense."
This is not quite correct, the range is between about 11,500 in a Trichoplax to 30,000 in the water flea Daphnia. Humans are in the middle with about 20,000. This certainly should make people scratch their heads, how can a human be in the middle of these two simple organisms? The answer is that we must not focus only on genes but entire genomes, that includes the huge amount of DNA that is classified as non-coding (formerly junk DNA).Once you look more carefully it become more clear how we can have so much more complexity without an unusually high number of genes.
"Rather than being the driving force behind evolution, it seems that evolution is driving DNA changes to create proteins that can help the organisms adapt to changes in anatomy and morphology."
Most academics in the field would say evolution is the result of environmental feedback and successful mutations, they would not say that DNA drives evolution.I don't think it makes sense to say 'evolution is driving' because evolution is not some kind of thing, or force, it is the overall measurement of change across time.
"So what drives biological evolution if DNA changes are only secondary? I believe it is the creation waves that the ancient Maya would refer to as Plumed Serpents (and many others ancient peoples called Cosmic Serpents or Dragons) and exist on nine different levels."
This begs the question, what is a creation wave? How can we just say these drive evolution without describing what they are made from, where they originate and exactly how the act on genomes?