In future could you please support your assertions with a bit more than flat denial.
No thanks. I prefer to just deny things.
Let me explain why one sort of "prediction" is not as convincing as another sort, even though they are both called "predictions."
The sort of prediction you are talking about is not a prediction about the future, but an idea about what something would be like probably, if such-and-such theory is true.
If evolution is true, there should be this "heirarchy" of life forms. We knew that there was this set-up already in the 18th century. Men, for example, would be very similar in some ways to apes, less similar to other primates, and then even less similar to more distant relatives. Morphological or DNA--doesn't matter. The genotype determines the phenotype.
What does this prove? In regard to evolutionary theory, it tells us that this heirarchical set-up that we find does not falsify the theory. If evolution is true, such a set-up would presumably have to be the case. Such in fact is the case.
What kind of convincingnesss does this have? It has some, but not nearly as much the real prediction I gave above.
That's why we need to make a distinction between these two types of "prediction."