For someone who is not an anti-evolutionist, you sure do look, walk and quack like one. Pardon the mixed metaphor.
Evolution predicts absolutely nothing about the fossil record, for the simple reason that the fossil record is dependent on chance events for the preservation of events. I daresay that if you dig a hole in the forest you are unlikely to find many full skeletons, despite the fact that there should be at least 6000 years, by anyone's account, of accumulated animal parts.
What evolution actually predicts is that fossils, when found, will make sense as transitionals. This is in fact what has happened over the last 150 years.
Since you are not an anti-evolutionist, you already know this.
This assumes, however, that we've had a clear and consistent definition of the term species for over one hundered fifty years, which certainly isn't the case.
Biologists can't even agree now what definitively constitutes species.
How can evolution predict what will make sense as a transitional form, if it can't even postulate what makes sense as a species.
So observing the data makes one an "anti-evolutionist"
Interesting logic.