Why has no one figured out how to create one simple unicellular

we have and i enjoy shooting them into your mothers mouth every night

>>9162510
Spermatozoa aren't alive.

This is like asking why no-one has built a rocket that can transport an entire self-sufficient colony to Alpha Centauri yet, or why we don't have lasers that can blow up the moon. There are several intermediate steps we'd have to master before getting to that point.

>>9162521
only because they cant survive stomach acid

File: rothschild_fleas.png (387KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1000x1000px

>>9162506
It's already been done. /thread
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-fewer-500-genes

>>9162544
I vote we concentrate on the "blowing up the moon" one.

>>9162584
The used Mycoplasma genitalium so not.

OMNI CELLULA EX CELLULA

>>9162506
Carl Sagan literally already did this over 30 years ago

Because it's impossible for an intelligent designer to do :^)

We should do this sometime. Just like the RNA world hypothesis. Maybe it's because if we were to simulate early Earth in say a fish tank it wouldn't be big enough and/or able to maintain long enough to actually see abiogenisis occur. The odds would just be too low. We need an entire planet's worth of oceans and at least hundreds of millions of years.

We need a way to up the odds of abiogenisis occuring if we want to witness it first hand.
But synthesizing a microbe from scratch sounds possible to me though.

>>9162774
>being so retarded you actually think someone created unicellular life 30 years ago on a popsci TV show
Pay more attention next time, brainlet.
>In this vessel are the notes of the music of life although not yet the music itself.
>Now, no one, so far has mixed together the gases and waters of the primitive Earth and at the end of the experiment had something crawl out of the flask.
https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=cosmos-carl-sagan&episode=s01e02

>>9162774
No he didn't. No attempts at abogenesis has been successful.

>>9162544
Bullshit, just replicate the arrangement of atom and presto! Life.

>>9162818
kek/10

>>9162506
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

>>9162602
Except that any offspring don't contain any mycoplasma DNA

> ignoring the obvious, why can't we recreate some super advanced blueprint to sentience that randomly one day mutated out of chemical sludge for no reason?

>>9163024
>blueprint to sentience
You consider unicellular life sentient?

The FIRST things to appear on this planet that were not rocks were things that could replicate (breed)

This is what todays viruses are (nonliving things that pass along some sort of genome)

look at the diversity of viruses (hiv, shit that infects bacteria, shit that infects plants, shit that infects fungi)

these things are unstoppable

the next major event in science (on the level of newton's law of gravity) will be finding their motif.

Is it just the scale is too small to construct one? Would it be easier to make a larger version of a cell, like one large enough that you could see it and work on it without needing special microscopic tools?
Why can't it be put together one piece at a time like any other machine?

>>9162506
Limitations on 3D imaginings of 4D genetic (and) morphology fields mostly, and insufficient time investment.