Any scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal
refuting biological evolution.
Not what I asked. I asked you what sort of "evidence" you would accept, not the format in which the evidence was presented.
More importantly, if all you'll accept is a "refutation of biological evolution," it appears that you've created an ill-posed problem. It is not necessary to "refute biolical evolution" in order to demonstrate (if it were possible) the presence of an intelligent agent in some particular instance.
And (sigh) once again, you already know and have admitted that humans act as intelligent agents. A good starting point for the proposed test, would be to define something that would account for that activity. What would you suggest?
Note, BTW, that what I've just asked does not require one to first refute biological evolution. It merely asks you to derive a standard of evidence that can account for phenomena we know to be true.
If you can't define for us what evidence you will accept, then it seems you've given yourself the luxury of being able to move the goalposts -- sorta like JF'nK and the MSM are trying to move the goalposts with regard to the Iraqi elections.