Well, then define [speciation]. Describe it. Tell me just to what these 'experts' agree - specifically, scientifically, evolutionally even. Your 'prediction'/test, by the way, is neither and does nothing to suggest that one might falsify the 'theory', which 'theory' you've yet to state, even in part.
As I said, I'm neither a biologist nor a paleontologist, so I'm unable to provide the details that you request. But since there is endless wrangling about these details (some of which wrangling may be seen on the web here and here), I don't feel especially bad about that. In fact, the basic argument of my initial post doesn't require anything except common sense to understand. I'll repeat it here (adding a bit more detail):
Currently, the fossil record appears to indicate that modern humans attained their present form no more than a few hundred thousand years ago (useful link). Evolutionists (i.e., almost all biologists and paleontologists) hold that modern humans did not exist before that time and in fact evolved from hominids which differ from modern humans in a variety of respects. That is, according to evolutionary accounts of the fossil record, nowhere on Earth were there to be found modern humans prior to (at most) a few hundred thousand years ago. Hence, if the fossilized bones of a modern human were to be unearthed in a previously undisturbed layer of rock or sediment that is, say, 50 million years old (obviously, the 50 million year figure is pretty arbitrary), this would imply that evolutionary accounts of the hominid fossil record are false.
I'll concede one of your points, though: it's probably correct, but not very informative, to describe this as a prediction (one could, at will, produce millions of similar predictions). Nevertheless, it's clear that what I've described is a discovery that, were it to be made, would falsify current evolutionary accounts of the hominid fossil record as regards modern humans. If advocates of creationism/intelligent design were to make such a discovery, it would certainly make for interesting press.
Finally, let me ask my earlier question in a slightly different way:
Is there any conceivable discovery that might be made about life here on Earth that would be capable of definitively falsifying the creationism/intelligent design account of what's going on here?
If the answer to that question is 'yes', I'd very much like to read a description of that discovery. But if the answer is 'no', it seems to me that one must conclude that creationism/intelligent design is not really a scientific theory, and so, while it might be a pious view to espouse, it shouldn't be mistaken for science.
Answer my question on this very point, from before, and you might have your answer. At least it would be something in the realm of science.
One such discovery would be putting a mix of chemicals in a test tube, waiting a while and seeing a human race emerge.
Earlier on the thread, you mentioned that the evolution theory predicts an absence of certain fossils in certain strata. True, -- but surely intelligent design theory predicts the same thing? Note that intelligent design does not insist on a different trajectory along which species gradually emerged, -- it merely says that the observable trajectory would not have been there if the process were entirely driven by random mutations.