Google is not likely to return useful results with those keywords. To begin with, there is no mathematical proof for evolution and cannot be by its very nature. Mathematical arguments strongly support evolution and give insights into how it works. That does not constitute a mathematical "proof". Googling for those keywords will return hits for sites trying to "prove" evolution can't happen, an equally impossible task.

Take a look at some of the domain names: "designinference.com", "creationism.org". See what I mean? The info you're looking for will be found in textbooks--math, biology, paleontology, physics, etc. The web sites you found appear to be full of specious arguments.

Lacking time to go into all of them, I'll address the first one just as an example: freerepublic.com. They mistakenly equate the probability of evolution producing humans with the probability of a bunch of monkeys typing Hamlet.

Mutations are random, selection is not. In the monkey scenario, they could get as far as typing Hamlet up to the last paragraph and then make one mistake. Then they have to start all over again! Evolution by natural selection doesn't work that way. It is more like if the monkeys happen to get the first word right, then they no longer type anything in which the first word is not correct. Once they get the first paragraph right, then everything else they type will have the first paragraph correct. They do not start over from scratch.

A little comtemplation should make it clear why that reduces the timeline by a few gazillion orders of magnitude.

The creationists' faulty arguments usually are some form of computing the probability that human DNA could randomly appear all at once instead of incrementally. Similar to the "what good is half an eye" nonsense.

There is not, as far as I know, any single reference that brings together all the knowledge needed to understand why the evolution of intelligent creatures is not only possible, but is inevitable given the laws of the Universe we live in. Some popular, not terribly technical books you might peruse are: The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, The Accidental Universe by PCW Davies, The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris. These will give you but a brief glimpse; a thorough understanding requires many years of study in many diverse fields.

I wish there were a simpler way--a "royal road" to knowledge. It might put an end to the creationists' silliness.

Note that this has nothing to do with the existence of God. He may or may not exist--it can't be proven either way by logic alone. I reject the hypothesis, but that's not the same as denying the hypothesis. Reject = "I don't believe it's true", deny = "It is not true". Big difference.