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.
Sure. If a bunch of new code (not a copy/paste) suddenly "showed up", this would differentiate the ID theory from the TOE. So, for example, if there was a large change in morphological features in a short (geologically short) time period in the fossil record, this would tend to be predicted by ID over TOE. Even the PE version of the TOE doesn't handle well a big change, where many morphological differences at once show up. So, if such a situation occurred in the fossil record, it would be better predicted by ID than TOE.