There’s things called protobionts that scientists can create. They have metabolism, excitability, and self replication capabilities according to a biology professor. I never understood how they work but I’ll look into it one day. They are the basically the something between non-life and life.
Recently scientists genetically engineered E.coli to produce an entirely new amino acid. Interestingly, the organism appears to be perfectly normal.
It is unknown as yet whether this amino acid has any biologicaal significance to the organism.
Not artificial life, but interesting nonetheless.
-Oli
But not because we lack intelligence - it’s beyond our capabilities because we lack knowledge. The two are different. All the evidence to date shows that human scientists are slowly but surely acquiring that knowledge.
We’re talking biblical crap here, right ? You can’t actually point to real evidence of a barrier anywhere except inside your own head ? Having followed the minimal cell story through Turing, Von Neumann, Shannon, NASA’s information theory colloquia back in the 60’s, up to the present day, I’ve never noticed the existence of even a credible theory as to insurmountable barriers to the creation of manmade life. These days, biologists appear to be moving hand over fist in the direction of artificial life. No one who matters is sitting about wringing their hands over the impossibilities, as you imply.
With the certainty you’re projecting here, surely you can provide us all with a convincing cite ? Your last set of links, to message boards where people discuss stuff and irrelevant DNA chip sites was deceptively off target. Please put up some facts, or cut it out with the bullshit.
Apparently, a couple of companies have succeeded in creating Life. One is a periodical, one is a board game, and another is a breakfast cereal favored by children named “Mikey” 
I think we might be limiting ourselves when we describe organic life. Could robots or AIs fit in the “living entity” category?
Of course, if you did it in the laboratory you wouldn’t just throw a bunch of amino acids together and wait a billion years. You would try to reproduce the steps by which life formed in the first place, but force them along at a faster pace. Problem is, there’s still no good theory for how it happened in the first place. So, Squink, before you crow too much about the lack of a credible theory of barriers to aboigenesis, you might think a little about the lack of a convincing theory for abiogenesis.
No you wouldn’t. We already have working examples of life to use as a blueprint. That gives us a tremendous leg up. The polio virus wasn’t created de novo from two carbon compounds, and future examples of artificial life won’t be either. Having seen the results of a billion or more years of blind evolution, man is capable of learning from it and producing an intelligent design. Why would anyone seeking to create life confront primitive old abiogenesis head on when they don’t have to ? It’s much easier to cut and paste from already proven systems.