Yes.
"It is the evolutionists who are short on predictions.
"When will be the next 'jump' be in the species to create a newer and greater species?
If you reread my post you will see that I wasn't suggesting predictions on what will happen in the future. Both Evolution and Creation should be able to make the same type of prediction (or postdiction if you prefer).
There are no 'jumps' such as you imply, even Punctuated Equilibrium takes 100s of 1000s of years for one species to change into another 'related' species.
Predictions such as you requested are impossible, not because evolution cannot make predictions but because the environmental conditions necessary for a given change describe a complex system bordering on the chaotic and because we we need to know not only the predicted environmental changes but 'all' available genetic variance within every population. This is simply not possible.
Predictions in Evolution are about what type of physical evidence we should find given certain conditions.
"Now, why should Creationists predict future events for something that happened thousands of years ago?
Because that is how science is done. However those 'future' events are nothing more than the evidence we should find about an occurrence in the past.
Every historical physical event leaves physical traces. This is why forensics is as successful as it is. With historical data from the distant past much of the evidence has been erased by 'entropy' but we have developed means of determining logic sequences based on what evidence is left and observation of current events. Evolution can, and has, predicted that genomic comparisons between related organisms will be more similar than comparisons done of more distantly related organisms. The prediction has been born out. Evolution can and has predicted the group of layers where the transition from fish to reptile should be found. The fossil Tiktaalik was where they expected.
Similarly, Creationists should be able to predict what should be found in a specific group of layers. All of the questions I mentioned in my previous post are those kind of predictions Creationists should be able to make. They are predictions based on known physical processes and the logical consequences of the Creationists hypothesis of a global flood. A global flood would leave very specific physical evidences. Creationists should be able to predict what should be found.
When considering two hypotheses which purport to explain the same observation then the predictions of what should be found need to be mutually exclusive between the two hypotheses. In other words, if one hypothesis is true the result found should be different than that of the other hypothesis should it be true.
However, and I thought I made this clear in my other post, if either hypothesis requires a known, well validated law or convention to be contradicted, it has disqualified itself unless it can be shown that the law does not apply in that specific instance. The greater the number of laws contradicted the greater the difficulty in showing a valid divergence from those laws.
So far, 'Creation' science has to postulate so many 'special' instances of current laws as to be rightly ridiculed.
Both Evolution and the Creationist attempt to prove the Bible, are historical pursuits where the predictions are not based on what will happen in the future but what evidence should be found if the hypothesis is true.
"Creationists and Evolutionists work with the same scientific data and come to the same conclusion on how things works now (operational science).
"The disagreement is over the beginnings, not the present.
Yet had the physical universe operated differently in the past there would be indications of those differences evident today.
"We are not looking for any more global floods (Gen.9).
"If that happens, then the Creationists were wrong.
"Either, 'In the Beginning God'
"Or
"In the Beginning Nothing'
"Take your pick on what sounds more ratonal.
Who created God?
If he wasn't created then what conditions preclude that need?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp
Predictions or ‘postdictions’?
Many evolutionists proffer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major reason that Mendel’s pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years (Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc.
So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.
What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.
Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.
Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information (see the book Not By Chance (right). In fact, evolution never ‘predicted’ antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?
Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches exactly what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.
Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Q&A Origin of Life for papers outlining the profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp