It seems very likely to me that our views are too reductionist, and the much of the key information isn't even encoded at the level of DNA as previously assumed.

The cells multicellular organisms are constructed from are all shockingly similar... "cells" are basically a solved problem for this type of life, and somewhat frozen in their functionality because major changes would disrupt the larger systems that they make up.

They are not. They vary greatly in structure and function.

Sure, of course the different multicellular eukaryotes vary, but the diversity is very low compared to what we see across all life, look at Figure 1 here for example [1].

I am looking at it from the perspective of the structure of the metabolic network, as this is my area of research. There is a huge amount of diversity in the fundamental structures of metabolic networks, types of metabolites and enzymes produced, etc. across all life, but from that perspective the differences between one multicellular eukaryote and another are slight in comparison. Multicellular eukaryotes have evolved very different behaviors, shapes, sizes, etc. from a relatively conserved biochemistry. When taken out of the context of an organism in cell culture, the cells are similar enough that their behavior under diverse experimental conditions can be predicted by nearly identical metabolic models, whereas you would see nothing of the sort with distantly related bacteria- the metabolism can be massively rearranged.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201648

Levin's research begs to differ. He did successfully regrow an amputated leg in a frog.

The genetic machinery for limb regeneration is highly conserved (see reptiles) and predates the appearance of lissamphibians. There's almost zero chance it's possible with endotherms.

This is the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2164 and it clearly states they treated a frog (xenopus, a common model organism), which does not normally regenerate when it's an adult. The paper clearly states that they treated with a set of factors that they believe induced a developmental plan- implemented by the transcription of DNA, translation of RNA, and expression of proteins. The initial treatment was removed, and the effect continued.

Also there's nothing about ion channels in this- the factors they used must have been actively transported- they bind to protein receptors.

So from a high level they say they have figured out how to “speak” to cells in a sense and instruct them to start building certain structures. And they emphasize that they aren’t making any changes to the genome or manage any of the low level processes themselves.

The celular machinery and its goals are separate from genes and can be controlled without "touching genes".

All the cellular machinery ultimately derives from genetic regulation and protein expression. You can't make more of it wihtout making more mRNA, translating that to protein.

This is bio 101, basic stuff, unless I'm completely misreading what you're saying.

Does Michael credit Becker for any of his work?