Also that number for Darwin seems just a little low.
Because every similarity between any two creatures "proves" Darwin. Interesting point system.
No, this similarity makes a prediction about the biogeographical distribution of species, the temporal an geographical locations of specific fossils, and the location of particular artifacts in disparate genomes which can be (and have been) verified in later finds.
What specific predictions does the creationist 'model' make?
Completely wrong, although revealingly indicative of one manner in which creationists typically misconceive evolution.
Similarities must fall into particular patterns to support evolution. The VAST, VAST, OVERWHELMING majority of logically possible patterns of similarity would not only not "prove" (support) evolution, THEY WOULD FALISFY IT. For instance if the DNA of mice were, overall, more similar to the DNA of humans than the DNA of Chimps is to humans, this would FALSIFY evolution, at least in terms of common descent. There are MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of possible patterns of similarity that would be fatal to evolution.