How is this result not perfectly consistent with "my hypothesis"? The sunlight is much less ordered than the DNA it is being applied to. The DNA, as a result of the less ordered sunlight, develops mutations and loses information, becoming less and less ordered. The organism ages and ultimately dies. Look at anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in the sun during their lifetime compared to someone who hasn't. The effects are obvious. In fact, everything left out in the sun too long is damaged because it is a lot of disorganized energy being applied.
Just a few things wrong with your post.
Mutations are not specifically what causes aging.
Mutations are not a loss of energy.
Skin aging is not fully due to mutations.
Skin aging is not body aging.
Trees are left out in the sun all day, every day and grow and thrive as do most of the organisms on earth (plants outnumber animals).
Solar energy is not disorganized. Solar energy, for example, would not be possible if it was.
Neither would photosynthesis.
All life on earth that we know of owes its existence to the sun.
If mutations killed people off like you say species would last one generation and all life would be gone now.
But, in facts, our DNA is very robust, even more so than early humans. We can survive exposure to things that would have (and did) kill them off.
There are a lot more errors if I look at your implications, but lets start with these.