When I asked about these "predictions" and what was the next evolutionary development we are likely to witness, I was directed to a link that described "retrodictions" and other linquistic contrivances that explain the "predictions" are not predictions at all.
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past?
Quite a lot if that person keeps finding valuable mineral deposits for an example from another field, or who predicts in advance of mapping genomes what similarities they will have with the genomes of other species for an evolutionary biology example.
I don't put a lot of stock in people who raise bogus objections to the numerous (some of them startling) predictions made by the theory of evolution. For example it was predicted that a fossil sequence from land-mammals to whales would be found, and eventually it was. How would ID predict that?
Didn't I see you on the OJ jury? That explains a lot!
You've got it wrong - scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past. And that is remarkable.
The Piltdown Man hoax is a perfect example - evolutionists weren't fooled, because Piltdown Man didn't conform to what they were expecting to find. Because Piltdown Man didn't fit with the predictions, they suspected that it was a phony from the start.
That's why all the evolution hoaxes have been exposed by scientists. We can make predictions about what we'll find in the future.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.