Title does not match article, article does not match the research, and the scientist making the claim is saying something that, if true, would require absolutel

Title does not match article, article does not match the research, and the scientist making the claim is saying something that, if true, would require absolutely rewriting everything about evo-devo biology. I believe the article was really written to publicize the scientist's book, "The Master Builder", https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/books/review/the-good-virus-tom-ireland-the-master-builder-alfonso-martinez-arias.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/books/review/the-good-vir... The only counterexample to the mainstream position that I can think of is not chimeric individuals (which are remarkable, but mainly a case for how accomodating of variation the existing biological systems are) but maternal factors- components in the egg cell that are not DNA, but contribute greatly to the phenotype of the embryo and resulting individual. Really the complaint is about the gene-centric view put forward by many- see The Selfish Gene for the best argument for the gene-centric (rahter than "genome-centric") view.