Sure. By analogy, suppose I have a CRM system (that's Customer Relationship Management to you non computer types.) This system lets a CSR (customer support representative) enter data about a customer into the system. For example, the ability to change address information. Now I can predict, absolutely, once I have examined the Siebal CRM, that the Clarify CRM and the Vantive CRM will also have this same functionality. Why is this? Because form follows function, in the sense that this functionality is needed, therefore it is written. Further, I can predict with confidence, once I have seen one ERP system, that any other ERP system will also have some form of order processing functionality.
Ergo, in fact, for ID I would predict exactly what you identify as true for TOE. Using your precise example, 'if a particulaar piece of dna is found in both people and orangutangs, it will also be found in chimps and gorillas', I would predict that for ID.
Based on an analogy between the hypothetical designer and current software design/implementation practices? Based on the hypothesis that the putative designer *just happens to follow* known phylogenies when doing his/her/its thing? What exactly has hypothesising a designer given us?
Because form follows function
Like cows, pigs, hippos and whales have a lot of functions in common
Remember, the statement applies to *all dna sequences*, even those that have no apparrent purpose (coding or regulatory). For example, fossil viruses, LINES, SINES, pseudogenes, etc.
It's funny that ID can make this prediction only after it was made by legitimate science. Is there any prediction from the ID camp that differs from the standard theory? (IE, one that could, in principle, disprove ID, making it more theory-like).
I stand by what I said above: No, there isn't.
ID is consistent with any conceivable observation, hence it is not science.