Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?

I'm slowly gathering facts together for a future video about the Darwinian mechanism for evolution (actually, it's failures), and one topic I wanted to cover seems to be yielding conflicting information. So I want to ask on this forum for any possible clarification or answers.Developmental Biologist Jonathan Wells brings up something that seems to be a death blow to the theory (if he's correct) regarding DNA. He says "When an egg's genes are removed and replaced by those of another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from the lack of the right proteins"..."Biologists have found that mutations in developmental genes often lead to death or deformity, but they never produce changes that benefit the organism. DNA mutations never alter the endpoint of embryonic development: they can't even change the species".He goes on about microtubule arrays and membrane patterns in the egg, and how those arrays are created by mysterious organelles called centrosomes which are inherited independently of an organism's DNA. He says "It is quite clear that developmental programs cannot be reduced to genetic programs, written in the language of DNA sequences. It would be more accurate to say that they are written into the structure of the entire fertilized egg---including its DNA, microtubule arrays, and membrane patterns". Basically he's bringing this up to show that this can't be explained by our current theory of evolution. If you can't get from one species of animal to another by replacing or mutating its DNA, then the Darwinian explanation is finished. Also, since all cells have the same DNA, and yet cells differentiate themselves into different types during development, something outside of the cell's DNA has to be in play (microtubule arrays, membrane patterns).However, when reading about cloning, it was mentioned that cat DNA was put into a rabbit egg, and the outcome was a cat clone. I thought that was impossible based on Wells' description. What am I missing here? Is Wells wrong, or is something else going on in cloning that isn't relevant to what Wells is talking about? I'm confused. If anybody is an expert in this area, please speak up. Thanks.-Ken Elhardt

It's too cumbersome to quote others, but just to answer some points that seemed to be directed at me (or Wells, since I'm quoting him).Using the assumption that what Wells is saying is correct (and maybe it's not), the reason this could be a problem for the Darwinian mechanism for evolution is because our current theory of evolution is based on DNA mutations and natural selection. According to him, if the developmental plan is not fully specified by the DNA, then mutations to DNA are not enough to produce a new type of animal (or species). Now, as in another post, exactly what a "species" is, is vague. But as usual, it's back to the fruit fly and an example of mutations leading to other fruit flies. Okay, maybe they're another species of fruit flies, but I'm looking for more than that, since obviously the two are going to be nearly identical anyway. I don't think that's what Wells is talking about. How about replacing the DNA of an ape with that of a human? If you don't get a human with an entire set of human DNA, then there must be more that's needed. But I'm being told by some here, that everything outside the DNA that is needed is also specified by the DNA. It's confusing.Here's something that I've wanted to know because it's related. Where exactly is the "3D geometry data" that defines for example, the shape of your skull, located? If cells need to differentiate themselves into structures like that, where is that specified? Sounds like membrane patterns and microtubule arrays according to Wells. But if those only come about under DNA control, then it's back to the DNA. But DNA doesn't hold "shape data" does it?As for somebody asking about my video, I don't know when I will put it out. I'm always busy bouncing around between things, but there is some stuff that needs to get out there because I'm getting a bit fed up with some of the nonsense I'm hearing and a lot of stuff that's being ignored. What I wanted to do first was run some of the stuff by some relatively knowledgeable people, because I'd like to be sure what I say is rather air tight. There are a few things I know will leave people in silence or cause them to become irrational, illogical, and go into denial, all of which means they've lost the debate. On another forum I asked for a Darwinian explanation for an observation made by Alfred Wallace which ended up that way, and no Darwinian explanation was provided, nor would it be expected that anybody ever could, because it's a failure of a theory to account for all relevant things. And yes, my youtube name is Elhardt.