So it were a theory, it would have no more explanatory power than evolution does, but have the added assumption of some sort of designer. Making it a less attractive theory by Occam's razor.
The creationists would probably argue either 1) from a common designer, or 2) loss of, or scrambling of, genetic material.
Which doesn't explain the tree structure actually found, unless they concede that chimps and people have a common ancestor, or the hypothetical designer just did it that way (ie to mimic common ancestry), not only in this case but in many others.
If the hypothetical designer is so constrained, the 'theory' agains flunks Occam.
ID doesn't argue against evolution as a mechanism, they argue that there are some important and basic things that evolution hasn't the ability to coherently explain.
I await publication and review. Remember, you said evo, not abiogenesis.
Arguing against ToE is not the same as presenting evidence for some other theory. There may be some phenomena that ToE doesn't explain. Whether ID is an explanation is an entirely different question, unless you take ID to be the vacuous form without constraints on the hypothetical designer.