Questions:
1.) Is this new "theory" intended as an empirical scientific hypothesis or an historical hypothesis?
2.) Is the use of the term "theory" intended to convey that the proposal has been tested and accepted by members of the communities investigating science or history?
3.) Would it not be less confusing to choose a more distinct title? There are already several "theories of evolution."
4.) By what means do you intend to travel back in time and test the predictions? Will others be provided with such conveyance in order to facilitate independent verification?
5.) How can you certify that you have not already traveled back in time and viewed the results in advance?
6.) Is there a more objective falsification available? "Could not" seems subject to being overcome by sheer credulity. And if one is talking history & time travel, "did not" seems more appropriate.
7.) Under the given definition of 'speciation', approximately how many species of human were extant c.1500 A.D.?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson