And if it was found out that there wasn't any sign of a fused chromosome this wouldn't hurt evolution one bit as evolutionist would do what they always do which is to explain it away.
Isn't the whole point of science to explain what we see in the natural world? In contrast, when creationists see the DNA that is only ever found in chromosome end-caps in the MIDDLE of this human chromosome they don't come to the obvious conclusion that two chromosomes fused, but instead that God must have done it for some unknown reason because the creationist cannot be wrong about Biblical interpretation...
It the same prediction which was made about the universality of the genetic code but when it was found out this wasn't true this had absolutely no effect of "universal common ancestor believers". Evolutionist makes all kinds of wild predictions including predicting exact opposites.
The first sentence doesn't parse. Are you somehow claiming that scientists thought every creature would have exactly the same genetic code? Further, the mechanisms of evolution don't allow prediction of exact results because mutations are essentially random. Do you dispute that what you might call microevolution or adaptation can cause opposite results (as an extreme example, extinction with one mutation, thriving with another)? There's really nothing controversial here, and unless you say something more concrete than "evolutionists just make stuff up" so we can deal with individual cases, I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss here.
So I totally disagree when we are speaking to people who believe" Mutations" can do just about anything.
Oh, not anything! Mutations can't give a frog wings without going through many generations of advantageous precursors. Simulations of evolution have NEVER been able to produce an eye that can zoom precisely because there are no precursors to a moving lens whereas they can easily produce current eyes through small advantageous mutations. It's quite a straw man to claim that anybody claims mutations can do just about anything.
In the article even with a different number of chromosomes between sexes of a specie of voles, it was found not to be fatal. Noticed how it is assumed they evolve 60 to 100 time faster just because there are vast differences in DNA but very hard to see any physical difference.
Think about this for a second. Are you claiming that all sixty species of voles (and that's just those in this study) were taken on the ark just 4000 years ago? The different species certainly aren't visually obvious though the voles seem to be able to identify their own species (we often need to use genetic tests according to the article). If not, you're claiming that evolution moves MILLIONS of times faster than usual, not just 60-100!
Furthermore, it's no impossibility that evolution should move faster in some cases. Notice that they don't claim mutations happen faster in voles -- they just split into different species more often than other organisms. Given that their number of chromosomes seems to have a very wide range in which the voles can survive (unlike humans who experience death effects with the wrong number of chromosomes) it seems likely that their chromosomes are simply arranged such that they are more easily copied than in other organisms, and once copied they quickly lead to sexual isolation through well-understood means.
The article even mentions a detail that could be the explanation of increased speciation -- the voles' mitochondrial DNA is rather uniquely capable of inserting itself in the cell nucleus' DNA. Can you see how this would increase the rate of mutation and thus make speciation more likely?
Current understanding of evolution doesn't have it gradually moving at one speed, I'm sure you've heard of punctuated equilibrium where a small population can be geographically isolated after many generations of accumulated diversity and will rather quickly adapt through cutting down the diversity (keeping only the positive traits in the new environment). That one population of organisms would experience speciation more often than another is interesting, but hardly a challenge to current understanding of evolution. In fact, if you questioned some leading creationists on this, I suspect they'd even support the fact that these voles experience faster 'micro-evolution' than other organisms. It's just not that controversial a finding as you seem to want to make it.
