You cannot assume that unobserved P exists because unobserved P predicts Q and Q is observed. That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You cannot assume that unobserved not-Q supports unobserved P. That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. These are fallacies and will always be fallacies. In every case, P is assumed 'a priori' and fallacy is used to justify belief in P when P cannot be shown to even exist.
"No, nobody saw the accused killer commit the murder. They merely made predictions about what evidence would be found if he had. But you want to rule that evidence out."
No, in the case of macro-evolution, you don't have a body and you don't have anyone's DNA at the scene because you don't have a 'crime scene' to examine. That supposedly happened back in unobservable assumed history. All you have is a guy w/ blood on his clothes. Maybe all that happened is that he punched somebody in the nose. You simply add the fallacy of inconsistent comparison to the fallacy of affirming the consequent in a desperate attempt to support macro-evolution. All you are doing is multiplying fallacies.
"I believe that is known as the "I know you are but what am I" fallacy."
No, that would be the bare assertion fallacy being reflected back at you. Now that it is reflected back at you, you can recognize fallacious argument. You just can't accurately recognize which fallacy it represents.
So, I ask you again: how can we know anything about the past if we can't draw a conclusion from the evidence and we can't draw a conclusion from the lack of evidence? How do we investigate prehistory? If evolution is true, how do we demonstrate it?