[Southack]

I hate to be a wet blanket, especially when someone is trying to agree with me, but a simple internet search on google will reveal that there have been numerous attacks on the Wistar Conference, most notably that only one mathematician, in only one paper, even came close to saying what most anti-evolution sites say was said by the mathematical community at that conference.

That being said, I feel comfortable attacking the myths against evolutionary theory simply because I am so certain of the reality of the real mathematical evidence against Evolution.

[medved]

One of the urls I provided notes that there were several of these conferences, not just one, and the primary focus was debate and not the production of papers. Nonetheless, Robert Bass, one of America's best mathematicians, notes that:

What the debate is about is whether or not any known or even conceivable chance-mutation based plus natural-selection based mechanism can lead to a radical increase in (or radical transformation of) the information content of the genome of the species in question. (This can be quantified via rigorous mathematics, as in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," published by the famed Wistar Institute of the U of PA after a bunch of the world's greatest mathematicians [including Ulam, the co-inventor of the H-bomb] debated a group of neo-Darwinian biologists.)

Further, the infinite unlikelihood of stochastic increase in the information content of a genome can be proved rigorously as a mathematical theorem in Information Theory (as published by Yockey, who wilfully avoids the theistic implications), which is almost the same as the Law of Increasing Entropy in Thermodynamics (and the hand-waving high-school-level efforts of neo-Darwinian efforts to discredit this creatonist argument are truly pathetic).

Thus, aside from any papers, you have a whole book of proceedings, the general thrust of which is that the standard view of evolutionism is mathematically impossible.