To prove that it can happen? To observe it happening? To come across another major scientific breakthrough? Because, cool?

: I'd be happening with just finding out how it occurred the first time around.

Presuming there was a first time around, I can understand why you would be happy finding out how it might have happened. I would be too. Heck I'd be super excited if the basis for any unproven theory I hold to were demonstrated and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's awesome when that happens.

: But how an animal behaves can ultimately be boiled down to chemistry. It's
: brain, like a human's can suffer damage or be stimulated with chemicals or
: electrical impulses to cause it to feel differently, behave differently,
: perceive differently. All that behavior can still be evaluated at
: chemically. Advancements in the field are increasing all the time. You can
: discuss how one behavior leads to another but if you dig down deep enough,
: you're still talking chemistry at its core.

And as I said,
"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."

In practice, not every field of biology deals with chemistry. Biology isn't considered a subset of Chemistry. Even if chemistry can explain why certain neurons fire causing certain actions, that's not what all scientists in the field of biology study.
Anyway, this is getting off track, again, and runs dangerously close to a semantics argument, and I hate those :P

The point at hand was whether there's a distinction between non-biological matter and biological life. The fact that a major scientific field is restricted to organisms we identify as "biological" (whether bound fundamentally to chemistry or not) implies that there is a generally agreed-upon distinction. And in a previous comment, we've agreed on that. The distinction may simply end up being a matter of chemistry, but I'm positive that no scientist has yet crossed that bridge.