So, lets step back again to the basics. DNA does not contain a description of the structure of any of the entities it is associated with. DNA is a self catalyzed recipe for seeding the development and metabolic functioning of a biological entity. It knows absolutely nothing about the entity it is building, or by which its metabolic chemical and molecular functions the proteans and enzymes that are patterned off of it. It triggers cascades. Those triggered cascades trigger other cascades patterned in the DNA strand. That is it. Your DNA knows no more about your structure or what you are and are not, than page 335 in a Betty Crocker book knows about the structure of the chocolate cake it instructed you in steps to bake. Much less actually. At least the Betty Crocker recipe tells you it is a chocholate cake, tess you by where the recipe sits, is a dessert. A better analagy to DNA would be one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions you set into motion by rolling a ping pong ball down a ramp, that hits a switch, that releases a weight, that unwraps a spindle, that swings an arm, that tosses some sugar into a pot that tips a scale, that... etc. and results eventually in a chocolate cake.
If you sent someone into the garage that houses that contraption, it would be impossible to extract from that machine the information you'd need to reconstruct a cake once it had been eaten or dropped off a cliff into a volcano or left out in the rain for a week.
Turns out that it is easier to build a self triggered recipe than it is to build a full description of the structure of something. Turns out it is less costly to let self catalyzed recipes make endless copies of entities they know nothing about than it is to keep any one of those entities integral as entropy has its sleepy but constant way.
If you did want to keep something's structure static over time, you'd have to know exactly what that structure was, you'd need a perfect description, you'd then need another perfect description of the first perfect description as the descriptions are just as subject to entropy as the system they describe. Oh and you'd need an endless and ever larger description of the nested descriptions beneath it, and by godel's various proofs, these systems would each be exponentially larger than the sum of the nested descriptions they describe. And you would need a mechanism by which to constantly and unrelentingly scan each nested system for deltas, for errors, and you'd have to break yet more Godel and Turing and Shannon laws by having the capacity to determine which system was the correct system and which was the system containing the error. And then you'd need another system, this one breaking every known law of causality and the second law itself, in order to reach into the primary system, or any of the reference systems, and correcting the error, without by doing so, introducing yet more errors. And, and this is even larger mess, because systems must adjust to changes around and in them, and because a system that can't learn from its environment will be eaten by systems that can, your impossible detect and repair system will need to know how to know the difference between a "good" change and all other "bad" changes. A project that itself demands the very changes that can't be determined good or bad in real time, that exist only for the purpose of determining, by pure brute force, by extreme waste, by absolute indirection, the criteria by which "good" changes might be selected and "bad" changes rejected. All of which adds to the sum of change that determines the rate of entropic production. For instance, the dendtrict structures built in a brain as it responds sensory information and to its own present structure, could not posible be stored in a reference set as they are constantly and must constantly change in order for learning or thinking to happen. A brain that is subject to repair is a brain that can't learn, can't think.
Your DNA knows how to repair you the way soap teaches water how to tell the difference between one molecule and another, not what those molecules are, not where they are, not what they are a part of , just how to break them apart.. So, if you are happy with the way tears in your DNA are reattached by a machine that has no clue what it is repairing, what should and should not be repaired, or why, then you define repair in exactly the way that it already happens, a repair process that results in certain decay and certain death in less than 130 years, most of which, 112 years of which, result in you becoming ever more decrepit, disordered, and dissipated.
But ultimately this discussion does not have much at all to do with the causal limits that make longevity impossible. This discussion, unfortunately, is about or at least exemplifies the struggle that depressed people have with the acceptance of reality, with the many escapist distractions depressed traumatized people construct in order not to have to remember the trauma that has resulted in the depression they need so to survive.
In times past, traumatized people resorted to fantastic religious rapture delusions for the escape distraction they needed. Today, more and more people have supplanted those mystical delusions with fantastic technological rapture delusions. And, just as the desperately religious are so easily identified by their fundamentalist hysteria that is triggered when any of their delusions are questioned, or illuminated, the transhumanist, singularian, space cult, new tech rapturists come absolutely unglued when their desperation fueled distraction schemes are exposed for what they are.
I am sorry to have to say this, because I of course want no further harm to befall you, but you are the quintessential poster boy for the new tech rapture escape and the deep paranoia that fuels it.
There would be no reason for a person not driven by stuffed trauma to say anything at all about any of this, except for the fact that the new tech rapture, in trying so hard to make alchemy of science, to make their existential escape fanaticism seem rational, have cause and continue to cause real damage to what the public knows of science. No one ever confused Zeus's lightning bolt with science, or Moses's magic staff with science, but the general public doesn't usually have the intellectual tools or confidence to determine the difference between the ephemera of science the rockets, test tubes, lab coats, slide rules, computers, and microscopes, and the essence of science, which ironically, is actually the purposeful filtering away of the noise of self such that what is may be known as separate from what we want and fear.
A scientist doesn't do science to live longer, or to get a space ship, or to make their bald spot fill in, or to live longer, or to fly faster, or to get rich, or to win friends, or to influence people... a scientist only does science to figure out the difference between what they want to be true and what actually is true.
Scientists build predictions. Science pretenders build projections. A prediction is true inclusive. A projection is self-centered and only ultimately "predicts" an individual's own fears.