Yes, it did.
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made. (1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
This is a prediction that the already observed pattern of life will be maintained with increased data. (e.g. mammals will continue to find highest trait similarity among mammals, etc.)
You can't say evolution predicted the general classification of animal groups since this was already achieved to a great degree before the theory was even off the ground. (And evolution couldn't predict this even in principle)
Evolution came along and constructed a narrative around that pattern of life. (as it could have a multitude of different patterns)
But they would all have a phylogenetic signal.
So what, a series of computer software has a "phylogenetic signal".
To rule out evolution, there would have to be a significant enough violation of the signal to be irreconcilable to any potential common ancestry narrative, something that couldn't be dismissed as a lack of data.