Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Although Genomicus may not respond or be aware of this response, the argument itself is worth pushing forward.The argument is that biology "looks" designed because it "looks" like machines and codes. That simply isn't true. Here is ATP synthase, the molecule we were discussing earlier: If you made a 3D model of that molecule, blew it up to human scale, and placed it on the sidewalk, what would people say as they walked by it? Would they say, "Oh, look at the machine!"? No. They wouldn't. No one would. It doesn't look like a machine.That pretty much ends the ID argument right there.We could also look at DNA. Here it is: If we placed that on a sidewalk, would someone walking by say, "Oh look, there's a code!"? No. They wouldn't.The entire ID argument appears to be stretches of imagination towards a conclusion they have already drawn.

That seems to be a distinction without a difference. What is different between "looks designed" and "has all of the elements/features of design"?Also, biology does not have all of the features of design. First, things designed by an intelligence do no fall into a nested hierarchy. Biology does. Second, designs serve a function needed by a designer. Life doesn't. Life's only function is to replicate. How do you determine what the "correct function" is? How did you determine that these features can only come from design?