That's why the only prediction of evolution is: Things will change...no wait, they can't even say that - I suppose the only "prediction" is: Things changed?!?!?
If we know so much about this process (millions of fossils and peer reviewed articles and scientists named Tom, Dick and Harry) why can we not make a new species prediction (hypothesis) regarding the process and then test it (experiment)? We already know that you can have varieties of cats and dogs and virus strains and Christmas...er...Winter Holiday trees...now let's see the friggin' Winter Holiday cat.
I guess this is your version of the I'm the Defender of Science speech....
Observing, say, the results of selective breeding and then concluding that only it replicated over a few (hundred?) million years can account for the diversity of present life is a classic example of conslusions exceeding evidence. You say we know a lot? In relation to all the facts of history, biology, climate, etc. of the past millions of years we know virtually zilch. Not that any of this matters to folks like the professor in this article - they are merely following the money.
Shameless Trolling placemarker. For the benefit of lurkers, if you read through this thread you will see that KMJ has already been shown numerous predictions of the theory of evolution. He can choose to ignore them if he wishes, but to trumpet statements like the one above is utterly shameless.