I’m thinking about it carefully, but I am almost entirely certainly #1 is not true because of how you are formulating the problem. I do not think that organisms are Turing reducible, and I am certain that DNA is not because it is not a closed system.
Not true. It is not the same. Look at what I showed you in: Computing the Functional Information in Cancer. This is central to the mathematical and logical error you are making. It was clear enough, and visual too, that several scientists understood and “endorsed” it on that thread. Understand that, and we can make some progress.
No, that is not true.
Just including the full system (which is unobservable large and detailed) might transform into a Turing process. There are processes that are not intelligence, also, that increase intrinsic information (as @PdotdQ @dga471 and I have discussed). In fact, intelligence itself might very well be Turing reducible. This is not escape hatch for you.
You have to demonstrate there is something (1) unambiguously observed in nature, and (2) this cannot arise without intelligence. On both these points CSI fails.
Logic of disjunction is vulnerable to failure of imagination. There is just other options you have not considered. Of course, if the goal is to make ones point, perhaps the failure of imagination is sometimes the design of the argument.