That is something that is done all the time. That is not a test whose outcome is dependent upon an evolutionary premise. In fact the test you have proposed doesn't even have an endpoint defined on the basis of evolutionary metrics. Where did you say you were going to school anyway?
Scientists have already done this.
I, as a scientist, have done so many times. Most biological scientists do. every microbiologist does at one time or another. In fact I can't think of one among my many colleagues in the biological sciences who hasn't. Not a one of them would say that evolutionary premise was at the pivotal core of what they were doing as they moved organisms from environment to environment.
If I recall correctly, they moved a bunch of lizards from one island to another 40 years ago. After just a few decades, the same lizards had bigger heads and new intestinal structures.
40 years will see dramatic changes in human beings as well, as you may find out some day when you reach a more mature age.
Did you know that some humans develop new intestinal structures particularly as a consequence of age and their genetics? What new genetic information are you aware of that "evolved" to bring about the larger headed lizard -- who as you say also happens to be the same animal? WHat does "evolution" have to do with such an observation at all?
Your hair tends to grow faster when it is warmer than when it is cold. Must one have to rely on an evolutionary premise to explain the phenomenon the way you must rely on say the theory of relativity to explain the influence of gravity upon light?
Your hair gets longer faster under certain conditions. The head of a lizard may also get bigger under certain conditions. Other appendages may have also. It may continue to increase in size by some factor over 40 years, since many lizards also continue to grow til the day they die. Why in your mind must the observation or a fact set such as this require an evolutionary explanation?
Your example sounds like it was drawn from a National Geographic show that likely dressed everything up in plenty of evolution speak and reams of unsupportable assuptions.
Evolution is merely the basis of a world view, not a scientific theory. I'm not sure, based upon the examples that you gave, that you understand what the Darwininan postulate for "evolution" is all about.
FReegards!
