: The difference is still matter that has genes or cells and those that
: don't...rocks don't have them, metals don't have them, but some
: arrangements of matter do have them. They chemically react to produce
: copies of themselves. But the constituents of DNA are still all known
: chemicals.

Sure. So we agree on the point that there is a fundamental difference, but we do not know how to bridge that gap (yet?)

: I do hope we can one day find out how the chemistry of life can arise from
: the chemistry of non-life. Even if it's extraordinarily hard and the
: conditions on a planet at the right distance form its star, the fact that
: we're here would at a glance tell me it occurred at least once in this
: universe and I'm optimistic that we'll find out it's happened all over the
: universe. It would be unfortunate if we're it.

It would certainly be intriguing if we discovered how it happens, for many, many reasons.

: I guess that despite all the subsets that one can create (geochemistry,
: biochemistry, etc) in the end if you distill what's being done enough, all
: biology can still be studied as a form of chemistry. When you talk about
: behavior in animals or the composition of snake venom, it's still
: chemistry to the core. And the properties that those chemicals exhibit can
: be traced back still to physics.

I don't think I can agree with you on that... I think that's reaching. The study of animal behaviour in an environment is a far cry from chemistry. If you use the argument that everything happens at its core down at the molecular level, then ALL form of science can be traced back to chemistry. That's an awfully large pot to stir, and IMO irrelevant to the discussion here.
As we know it in practice, the science of chemistry is distinct from the science of biology, though there are intersecting fields.