With many apologies for joining this thread very belatedly -
I am inclined to agree with @Michael_Okoko on this, although I must admit that the discussion in this thread is somewhat confusing. I think it is safe to say that the fundamental organization of the cell is some sum of the properties of the proteins and enzymes that establish and maintain this organization. (Along with other regulatory features including RNAs.) In this sense, the connection with proteins and enzymes is a connection with the genome. Put another way, heritable changes in the genes that encode the myriad network of factors that contribute to this organization can and do change the nature of this organization, in ways often manifest as phenotypic alterations. I don’t think any of these statements are all that remarkable, and I am bit a bit confused as to the points of contention here.
(As an aside, I seem to recall taking Meyer to task for claiming that there are no known mutations in genes encoding cytoskeletal components that could change cellular organization - this happened at my visit to Biola, and I believe (although I cannot find the thread at the moment) that @Mercer agreed with my disagreement with Meyer on this point. My recollection, if accurate, makes this current thread all the more confusing. This is something I pressed Meyer on because Meyer, taking cues from Wells, sees this as a way to disconnect form and function from “the DNA”, and thus strike a big blow against “Darwinian evolution”.)
I will reiterate some common observations that, in my opinion, are very telling. First, is is possible (in fact, routine) to separate a cell in a plant from all neighboring cells (this is true for somatic and germline cells, which in plants is a blurry distinction), erase all organizational/positional information such as might be conferred by gametes, neighbors in the tissue, etc., so as to yield a spherical cell, and subsequently regenerate a normal, fertile plant. In so doing, it is demonstrated that the newly-regenerated plant did not require positional or physical information from prior generations in order to form. It would thus seem that “the DNA” suffices for the determination of form and function of a new multicellular individual. (I am not saying that the internal organization of the protoplast is erased, but rather that any organization that exists is entirely separated from prior generations.)
In addition to this, it is also possible to mix-and-match, as it were, nuclei (genomes) from one plant with the cytoplasm (structural components as well as organellar genomes) of another. What is found when this is done that the plants regenerated from such hybrid cells take on the appearance of the donor of the nucleus. In other words, form and function are dictated by the nucleus (genome, “DNA”, or whatever). (Google the term “cybrid” to dive into this fascinating world.)
These examples, I believe, support the statements that @Michael_Okoko is making in this thread. As I state above, I am not sure what the points of contention are.
The examples I describe in this post refute the suggestions of these “ID writers” in no uncertain terms.