Life is an extremely interesting and complex phenomenon worthy of study. It's not a counterexample to the observation that structure and complexity indicate interesting phenomena, rather than "coincidence".
Yes, this ring could be an example of structure, but what caused the structure?
One explanation is that it is not due to any new physics; it is just that randomness happened to produce that apparent structure.
So my point is, if we go looking for some new physical phenomena that could have produced the structure, then why the unwillingness to probe unknown forces that could have produced life?
Because of ideology. They’re both inquisitive but one veers to close to other subjects considered fanciful such as simulations or some creator force, whereas the other seems to seek other types of scientific explanation.
Because it only needs one random "hit". After that self-replication makes sure it doesn't have to happen again.
Btw: the first self-replicating molecules wouldn't have been particularly complex. It may have been a half-broken piece of RNA, not from base atoms but from nucleic acids. And it only matters that it formed RNA (it does not matter what the code "in" the RNA was. It would be self-replicating no matter what that code was, so there were many valid possibilities). Also there's no need to get the "ladder" part of the molecule right. Yes it requires random chance, sure, but it may not be all that unlikely.
If random processes can give birth to structure, then one can also argue that maybe this ring is a fluke.
Remember that randomness is not necessarily uniformity