There is a massive difference between the innumerate Evo-Avengers committing one mathematical error after another in trying, and failing, to criticize Probability Zero and the analyses of the possibility of evolution by various means proposed it contains, and a critical review by an actual mathematician, in this case, Dr. Ola Hössjer, a Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University
1. Introduction
On September 16, 2026, I wrote a Substack guest-post review of the first edition of Vox Day’s book Probability Zero. In this book, Day presents an argument for the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (MITTENS). Since Day updated his argument in the second edition of Probability Zero, I am here writing a more extensive follow-up review based on the second edition of Probability Zero and some other written material of Vox Day......
The demonstration of mathematical impossibility may yet be wrong. It is not, and it can never be, irrelevant.
Is it still theoretically possible that I’m wrong and that the post-modern polythesis will somehow survive my mathematical analysis? In theory, yes. I can currently construct one analogous model based on real empirical evidence that may or may not be directly applicable to the chimp-human divergence that would, in theory, produce enough base pairs to satisfy the observed shortfall. But only one, while all of the other constructed models point the other direction, and we now have an entire matrix of comprehensive divergences that the polythesis model has to somehow satisfy perfectly to even hope to remain in play.
It’s a little ironic that all of this work will be performed and published outside the relevant scientific fields, but that’s what happens when the evolutionary biologists are too lazy and innumerate to join in all the big boy games.
