I always thought that DNA is what identifies each individual Human being, like finger prints just much more complicated,
The complexity of the human body and how it came into existant like matter has not been explained by science, and thats why more and more scientists are starting to believe in creation. Probably because they have come to realise the difficultity/ impossibility of creating matter and inventing life. BTW if you don't want to even consider the possibility of an almighty Creator, you will have to creat the matter out of nothing..
If you know of some type of life form which has been invented/manufactured please tell me, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.
BTW I wont be offended if you come up with a plausable explanation as to why animals have'nt evolved to the same level of humans.
Anyways - from your definition of life - any robot with AI that is tasked with creating other robots with AI constitutes life. So does that make the dude who created the first robot a God? This is where some religious people try to argue that evolution vs creation kicks in, just at differing scales of complexity. Nice concept.
But to get back to original question about how can such complexity be created. Let me give this 2 you in simple probability theory.
So you got a coin and flip it. What are the possible outcomes? Heads (1 in 2) or tails (1 in 2). Well there are actually 3 outcomes - the coin lands on its side. That I believe is something like a 1 in 6000 chance. So we start with some random chemicals. 1000's of interactions per second. Eventually two chemicals join and form a solid compound and that is repeated. The old edge of the coin.
Eventually those compounds join with other compounds to form some kind of primitive protein. Eventually proteins interact with other compounds to form some primitive cellular structure. And we can keep going like this over some ridiculous number of chemical interactions, over billions of years, some stable and preferred, some failing. If u want to know what happens next, I refer u to the Bare Naked Ladies song from big bang theory.
Now with the right information and processing power, you could map out this probability all the way to the current day. But we don't have either. The numbers are too ridiculously large. Evolution at the end of the day is pure probability theory.
Now religion is probability theory too. What is the probability of there being a God? No idea. You and others obviously believe, without having the right information and processing power, that the probability is very very high. That is your belief. I and others don't believe there is a god. That is my belief.
You cannot prove I am wrong and I cannot prove that you are wrong - so this is all about changing someones perception of the evidence. You perceive your evidence as being stronger than mine, fair enough. But this constant you should read this or see that or I should make an argument to prove it to you is disrespecting my belief. Now in light of the new TK order, should we not respect each others beliefs? Reprinting factually incorrect that is 100% scientifically provable to justify your perception is disrespecting my beliefs.
If you want to know what science perceptions are that influence our beliefs - ask. Don't quote some random preacher who is wrong. And I'll give you the same respect by not quoting some random scientist who has a theorem that shows God doesn't exist. Think thats fair enough.