I simply do not understand what you mean by the sentence: "the organism does not change with modification to the information (DNA code)." To someone who has twenty years of experience working with mutation research like myself this is news as well as the claim that this would be scientific certainty. What do you mean to say? I do not follow.
I also think it is essentially hairsplitting (while factually true) to point out that there may be some anomalous animal with 10,000 or 30,000 genes, since as you can see all significant model animals including the human being fall within a narrow range close to 20,000 genes. This is consistent with the view that DNA codes for proteins, but has nothing to do with the instructions for the anatomy or morphology of an animal.
The point is that taken at face value the whole neo-Darwinist paradigm falls flat by a comparison of the G-values of different organisms, since obviously the human being is a much more complex organism than a nematode (I would say at least three orders of magnitude, but if you include mental properties it would certainly be more). It is a fact that before the human genome was sequenced a common estimate of its number of genes would be in the range of half a million and it turned out to be less than that of a nematode. But for those that want to cover up the failure of this prediction the best way out is to say that we should not look upon the number of genes but the entire genome. Yet, there is no evidence that this would hold true. It is just a last ditch attempt to keep the neo-Darwinist paradigm in existence. 20,000 genes holds the same amount of information regardless of how the genome is viewed.
But since most biologists are not aware that there is anything but the DNA that could provide instructions as to the body plan of an organism they will do everything to defend this view. I do think there is an increasing view that the DNA is modified by the cells, but you may be right that it is a small group. If you are interested in studying the alternative extensive theory including the creation waves I would have to refer you to my books either The Purposeful Universe or Quantum science of Psychedelics. Unfortunately, these are not matters that can be covered with a short note but requires the recognition of a multidimensional reality. Certainly, I would have hoped that you would have been more interested in discussing the remarkable meaning of the 780,000 year old date, but that was not the case.