In the context of scientific inquiry, the term prediction means "The logical consequences of a set of premises". Consider the following premises :
Athena is taller than Zeno.
Zeno is taller than Apollo.
Apollo is taller than Plato.
Given (1)-(3) and the rules of inference in deductive logic. We can derive Athena is taller than Plato. Likewise, given the premises (axioms and definitions) of Euclidean Geometry, and the rules of inference in deductive logic, we can derive (5).
The sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees (two right angles, where a right angle is a one quarter of a full rotation.). And given the premises (definitions and laws) of classical mechanics and the rules of inference in deductive logic, we can derive (6).
(6) If you throw a stone straight up, it will go up in a straight line and come down in a straight line. It will not go up and stop there, go up and come down in a spiral, go up and come down in a slanting path, ...
We say that (4) is a prediction derived from (1)-(3), that (5) is a prediction derived from Euclidean Geometry (what mathematicians call a theorem), and (6) is a prediction from classical mechanics. To show that something is a prediction from a scientific theory, you need to articulate the premises (axioms and definitions) of the theory, and derive the alleged prediction from the premises using deductive logic.
I have not seen a single derivation/proof of this kind in any published research or textbook in macro evolutionary biology. Notice that I am not talking about 'proving' that evolutionary theory is true. That requires non-deductive logic. I am talking about proving that an alleged prediction is indeed a prediction. That requires deductive logic. Notice also that I am not talking about forecasting. e.g., Does evolutionary theory say whether or not humans will lose their legs by CE 4000?
Prediction in the sense outlined above concerned only with deriving one set of propositions from another set of propositions. It has nothing to do with foretelling, which is predicting future events, as distinct from predicting past events, or predicting the weight or height of a person from the age of that person.
I mentioned deductive logic in deriving predictions. The deductive logic can be classical deductive logic, probabilistic deductive logic, or defeasible (non-monotonic) deductive logic. In situations that demand non-monotonic logic, we may get the effect of what is called 'chaos' , 'non-linearity, 'strange attractors' or 'sensitivity to initial conditions'. For instance at the beginning of the twentieth century Poincarré discovered what is called the three body problem in classical mechanics. Even though the laws of classical mechanics are deterministic laws, the application of these laws to a situation in which a planet is caught in the gravitational attraction from two stars (instead of a single star) makes it impossible to predict a single trajectory/path for the planet unless we have infinite precision in our knowledge of initial conditions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem)
Given that life is a Complex Adaptive System, it is impossible to make unique predictions of the sort made in classical mechanics with exactly two bodies. All that we can predict is the space of possibilities, and the most probable states within that space.) This is what we are asking of a theory of biological evolution worthy of being called a 'scientific theory'.