Snoke

Behe and Snoke published in peer-reviewed literature, plus there was a 1990 article by Behe on Histone Deletion mutants.

Blogginheads Controversy 2009

The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.”

Random responses to Luskin on evolution of creationism, quotes, and information - The Panda's Thumb 2010

Behe refuted IC himself in his paper with Snoke in which he calculated that the number of bacteria present in just a ton of soil could evolve an IC structure by point mutations alone in only 20,000 years.

A Solution to ID? 2007

Snoke: This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory …

Behe Responds 2007

Behe refuted IC himself in his paper with Snoke in which he calculated that the number of bacteria present in just a ton of soil could evolve an IC structure by point mutations alone in only 20,000 years.

A Solution to ID? 2007

"Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible."

Bias on Wikipedia? 2006

In a commentary published with the reports, Snoke says that the magnon-making study, while promising, lacks firm evidence that the magnetic waves exactly match each other as they should in a condensate.

Quantum Study Yields Unusual Results | Impact Lab 2006

Behe is of course the lone exception – he at least tried to test his IC notions, but failed (see Behe & Snoke, 2004 in the journal Protein Science).

But it's not Science! 2006

The Behe and Snoke paper is only indirectly relevant to ID as it provides no positive explanations as to how.

The Memory Hole 2005

Second, Michael Behe and David Snoke attempted to prove that it is impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) for random mutations to produce biological novelty, but Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright demonstrated in a (relatively) short paper that using the same calculations as B&S but assumptions actually applicable to the real world, the evolution of such biologically-novel structures isn't just possible; it is likely, and common.

The Memory Hole 2005