[Dimensio]

No. The mechanics of gravity are well known. And I'm not about to get into some stupid 'gotcha' comparison of Newtonian physics and Relativity.

I'm not trying to pull you into that game. I'm merely pointing out that even when the mechanics of a process are known, it is not always possible to preduct the ultimate outcome of an event that will utilize that process.

And I'm not talking in the sense of " we see a progression of evidence in the fossil record, therefore, we predict a progression of evidence in the fossil record " crap. That is a tautology.

You're right. The progression of evidence in the fossil record was made after it was predicted, thus that would count as a successful prediction of the theory, not a tautology.

As for the trap of explaining mechanics, lets just say that the laws governing the motion of planets around the sun can predict within a rather good degree of accuracy where those planets will be 10 years from now.

A giant asteroid hitting one of the planets and knocking it out of orbit would falsify the prediction, but this would not falsify what we know about the laws of motion.

[Tench_Coxe]

"A giant asteroid hitting one of the planets and knocking it out of orbit would falsify the prediction, but this would not falsify what we know about the laws of motion."

OK. Let's accept this argument.
Now, knowing a trajectory of the asteroid, and it's mass, one can go back and determine the results.
Can you say the same for providing environmental conditions and predicting an end result?