The following is from a post on a blog that was discontinued in April of 2013. For more information, see Evolutionary Boundary.
Evolutionary Boundary (by Whitcomb)
February 25th, 2012 [Original scientific paper published around 2003]
After about half a year of mathematical simulations, it became obvious that no further calculations were necessary. It was impossible to ignore the direction it was going: The candidates for Darwinian evolutionary progress had shrunk so dramatically that they could not produce any new biological structure. Darwin’s Natural Selection actually PREVENTS ANY major biological-development change in ANY organism.
The simulated environment was ideal for the kind of evolution Darwin envisioned, with an original population of 10e29. The larger the population, the greater the potential for one organism to experience a change that might lead to a new biological structure that can be passed off to descendants. But the testing surprised me, for I was not even able to force any major change in biology.
Evolutionary Boundary (on Creationwiki)
Much of the credibility of Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution is based upon a generalized idea of Natural Selection acting upon populations. Neo-Darwinism involves mutational changes that have been theorized to have caused sub-populations to develop differences which, when combined with later mutational changes, eventually add up to major transformations. The generalization is in mixing the idea of immediate survivability with the idea of long-term benefits of new organs or other biological structures.
Even allowing a very low PAES for arriving at the target organism, the IS value of the general population will soon increase. As the competition level increases, the groups with highest PAES (and small populations) will not have sufficient populations to generate additional PAES. Thus the principle of survival of the fittest creates a boundary that prevents the formation of a biological structure that might otherwise result in an organism capable of using an alternate source of energy. There does not appear to be any mechanism available to cause the simultaneous increase of both IS and PAES sufficient to catapult any organism into the category of the target organism.
We need two ingredients, although they seem to defy mixing: simple explanations and precise details. I’ll now go for simplicity.
Around the end of 2001, before I became captivated by eyewitness accounts of modern pterosaurs, I began mathematical simulations to test Darwin’s ideas about common descent and natural selection. By 2003, I found that survival of the fittest actually prevents any organism from evolving any new biological structure that would change its descendants to a basically different type than the original.
To be precise, I was not directly trying to disprove the unlimited-common-descent philosophy of Darwin. I attempted to force one step in the countless steps of his concept of major evolution. I spent about half a year of part time calculating on this simulation and was surprised that in only a few generations it became obvious that the promising populations became so small that they would not survive nearly long enough to carry on the mutational changes that would result in a new and useful biological structure.
To the point, Darwin’s concept of natural selection (AKA survival of the fittest) PREVENTS any major evolutionary change from taking place in a population of a species, the opposite of what he had assumed. In addition, I am not at all alone in recognizing that natural selection has problems and does not support Darwinian evolution, meaning the kind of evolving that would cause tiny simple forms of life to have descendants that were human, AKA “molecules-to-man.” Other scientists, many with far more obvious achievements than I have, support that problem inherent in natural selection: It is incompatible with a world of microorganisms evolving into the many large complex animals, birds, and aquatic life we now have in this world.