Theoretical computer science, particularly the mathematical aspects relevant to this particular discussion, is what I do. Where you see "amazing", I see "necessary consequence" or "mathematically probable behavior". You presume significance where none can be inferred. I started out as a chemist and engineer, and ended up in bleeding edge computer science. I may not be easily amazed in this domain, but I also have a lot of educated perspective and experience.
Complex looking is not the same as complex in fact. An algorithm that can be scrawled on a cocktail napkin can generate apparent complexity that exceeds that of the known universe. Mathematics says this is trivially true, and many practical applications (such as encryption) are based on this fact. Proving that something is "complex in fact" rather than merely "complex looking" is a very non-trivial exercise and impenetrable to intuition. Do you alone possess this extra-mathematical capability? If not, then you have essentially made an unsupportable assertion.
Ah, that explains quite a bit. I've read Knuth and keep his books close at hand. I would love to do what you do, but have a family to support and little time for study (which you can see by how obviously stupid and ignorant I am, per your earlier observation).
I think that you haven't looked into the very complex workings of the dna code. It has a specific numeric code and it's duties are far more complex than a computer code. I mean, look at what it does in providing the blue print for our bodies and all of the various functions that must be exact. It's an amazing factory inside of us. Why don't you really read up on the latest discoveries of our dna.