Why is a different approach necessary?

Hi there, I would really appreciate if you could take a look at my work and share your thoughts about my grammar, point out my mistakes, etc...

"Contrary to common beliefs there are still incredible systems in nature (products of evolution if you like), that are far beyond the understanding of today's science. Consciousness is one of the most intriguing ones. One may trivialize it as a result of some patterns in the neural network of the brain, but anyone who claims that he knows what consciousness is should be able to recreate it. Every tool necessary for making an artificial mind is available to science: we can simulate neural networks in computer programs, we have artificial computing power that exceeds the capabilities of the human brain, and we can communicate with these programs in a human language. The only thing that stops science from making an artificial consciousness is that nobody knows what it really is.
Until someone manages to create consciousness, everything that have been said about it should be considered as a hypothesis, a hypothesis that refers to another poorly understood system: the brain. The human brain is so complex that we cant even tell how complex it is, and this complex organ is encoded in yet another poorly understood system, the DNA.
The greatest achievement since the discovery of the double-helix of the DNA is that now we know how it encodes for proteins, but this knowledge doesn't help as much as one may think. Mice have basically the same genes as humans, their genome encodes the same proteins as ours and this means today's science can't tell us what makes a human Human and a mouse Mouse on the genetic level. I have to mention here the non-protein coding regions that takes more than 90% of the genome and that are even more of an enigma for genetics. So I think we can definitely say that DNA currently is poorly understood phenomenon. To get to the point, how can someone explain how a mechanism that he doesn't understand came to existence? Ask a 5 years old kid what he thinks about the making of televisions. Without knowing how they work how accurate his answer could be? This is the case with DNA today, we have an explanation how it came to existence: duplications and mutations, but it's an enigma how DNA makes us humans. It is reasonable that science try to give answers to such questions, but unfortunately this answer (mutations and duplications) doesn't help science at all. None of the sophisticated mechanisms of DNA have been derived from this hypothesis, they all have been observed as technology progressed, while this hypothesis led to such dead-ends as the concept of „junk DNA”. The problem as I see it is that while this concept doesn't help us understanding DNA, it suppresses every other hypothesis that could, and this is why we need a different approach."

Thank you very much!