I share scratchme1010's thoughts. The opening post makes incredible leaps as it jumps to conclusions that are not based on anything at all.
If your incredible leaps were valid, then let me draw them out to one more inescapable conclusion.
"If every machine primarily proves someone designed it, then a much more complex, wonderful, and living machine with reproductive feature would mean the same: someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed it because effect explains the cause just like harvest explains the sowing (whether you saw sowing or not)."
This leads to an endless series of "creators." If "someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed [humans]," then
"someone with corresponding ability, of higher energy, designed [that designer/creator]."
And it would go on and on, using your own conclusions. Since that is not logical and sensible, the original premise must be flawed.