I'm surprised that the authors seemingly can't see that their argument hoists them by their own petard by showing, using exactly the same reasoning, that human

I'm surprised that the authors seemingly can't see that their argument hoists them by their own petard by showing, using exactly the same reasoning, that human intelligence is equally impossible to create (unless, perhaps, you are willing to use vitalist/supernatural arguments to claim is is different in kind from computational AI). Surely the referees must have raised this at the review stage?