You are saying that humans contain designed engineering beyond any machine.
Now you're saying that design = machines.
So if humans are so very unlike machines, then they must be very unlike design.
Which is
my point: human complexity is the result of generations of trial-and-error (aka, evolution by natural selection), while modern machinery is the result of forethought and planning.
Case in point: the wheel. Evolution cannot produce a wheel, hence why it doesn't exist in any animals gross anatomy. The wheel is an artefact of engineering, that has existed since humans first put their mind to the most rudimentary of engineering. Yet natural organisms, which are supposed to have been designed by a being of infinite intelligence, contain glaring blunders - inefficient locomotion, inefficient eyes (backwards retina? really?), the vertical spine (no engineer would design human organs to hang horizontally
off a vertical spine composed of vertically stacked discs, yet this is exactly what we'd expect from a quadruped that became a biped).
My remark, then, was to tacitly point out that you're inadvertently proving our point: humans are complex, but that complexity belies evolution, not design. We are riddled with features that scream "Adaptation!", not "Omniscient foresight!". To quote the man himself:
"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system with all these exalted powers Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." - Charles Darwin, 1874, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed, p 619.