The one article did say “Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.” I did at least acknowlege that the other article seemed to say something that was not as strong. With the information I have seen, the best you can do is “we don't know.”
“Evolution would say that the information for the structure was newly generated.”
I'd be interested to see this new information. Until we have it, there is no evolution here, it's variation within kind. Do you have a proposed mechanism for this to happen in 36 years? My theory does. You have to assume these lizards just happened to hit the random mutation jackpot and develop a completely new structure in that short time, something that your theory says should take millions of years. The structure also happens to be very similar to one which occurs in other similar lizards (rare though it may be) but you claim it re-evolved fresh here in these lizards.
Sorry, but if you don't have new genetic information, it doesn't strengthen your theory, it strains it.
“If creationist/intelligent design researchers want to dispute that, it's easy...”
This sounds like a valid line of inquiry for either side. In addition to the genetic study, it would be interesting to take lizards from the original island and subject them to a similar diet and environment to see if similar changes would occur.
“Somehow, they never take up that challenge.”
Creationists are shut out from the public university system, not because of faulty science, but because they lack the required ideology. (The same goes for the peer reviewed periodicals.) Both sides have an interest here. Your side has better access to money. Besides, unless you have the new information to show us, you don't have scientific evidence. All you have is an observation filtered and sorted according to your religious dogma (that really fits better in the creation framework.)
I appreciate your lengthy reply, and I apologize for not having the time to reply at similar length. I admit that I'm confused by the statement you quote--I don't know how something with a whole new gut structure can be "genetically identical" to something without that structure. It seems to me clear that at some level--maybe something other than DNA, but I'm not expert enough to guess what--the very existence of the new structure demands different information, whether it's new or had always been there but never expressed.
It still seems to me that the development of a physical feature that was simply not present before is evidence for evolution, and that the burden is on creationists to find the information for that feature in the source population. As for the question of money, I'm not sure I buy it: creationists managed to raise $27 million for a museum, and the Institute for Creation Research takes in almost $9 million a year. They could spend some of it on outfitting a nice lab.