I just read Szostak's bio at HHMI and was not impressed enough to want to go further. It said:
Today, Szostak's main focus is the construction of a simple, artificial cell that can grow and divide as well as evolve in a Darwinian sense to adapt to its changing environment. To do this, he is attempting to make and then combine two self-replicating systems: a nucleic acid (such as RNA or DNA) that can transmit genetic information and a simple membrane-bound vesicle that keeps the nucleic acid chains from drifting apart. A major challenge is coordinating the growth and division of the membrane-bound vesicle with the replication of its contents. Szostak has found that the nucleic acids themselves can drive the growth of the fatty acid membrane; as they replicate, the internal osmotic pressure increases, swelling the vesicle and stretching the membrane so that it absorbs fatty acids from other vesicles that are under less internal pressure. Cells with faster nucleic acid replication should therefore grow faster than cells with slower nucleic acid replication. In this way, simple physical principles coordinate the replication of the nucleic acid genome and the replication of the rest of the cell structure, leading to the emergence of natural selection and Darwinian evolution based on competition between cells.
This is merely an extension of Wimmer's experiment. According to this bio, he, like Wimmer, is starting with the message and presupposing autonomy, semiosis, awareness and information [Shannon.] Again, my question goes to the rise of autonomy, semiosis, information [Shannon, successful communication] and awareness. Not taking it as a "given."
Since you are obviously aware of his work, perhaps you can tell me whether he addresses those specific points on the order of the mathematicians and physicists who have. (e.g. Pattee, Rocha, Yockey)
I don’t really know how to phrase this any simpler. If mathematical models do not conform to physical reality, the models are defective.
Szostak is working with physical reality. If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.
One could hearken back to discussions of whether human powered flight is possible. There’s theory and math, and there’s experimentation.
There’s scarcely anything happening in recent work on evolution that wasn’t declared impossible based on theories of irreducible complexity, or some form of vitalism.
I find it interesting that Yockey and Dembski have undergone late life conversions on the subject of evolutionary algorithms and information. There’s even a hate Yockey site devoted to pillorying Yockey for turning against ID. Dembski hasn’t turned against ID, but he has realized that selection is a source of active information.