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.
“the very existence of the new structure demands different information, whether it’s new or had always been there but never expressed.”
It could have been something that was latent but triggered by diet. It also could have been something that existed in a few of the transplanted lizards, but it proved so advantageous that their decendants became dominant in the new location. Both are jsut speculation, but either seems more likely that a random mutation causing the development of a new structure similar to an existing structure in other lizards in only 36 years.