No, you also have to produce fats and sugars.
If you want to know how the body plan is formed, look up embryonic development. First, the fertilized ovum grows. Then, at about 3 weeks, all of the organs start to form and all exist by 5 weeks, along with the limbs. This is all a result of cells producing and responding to chemical signals. After 5 weeks, the body grows and becomes more detailed.
Another of the many problems with evolution is the part about transition from one species to another. It’s never been observed. And if you have an intuition for probability, you might see that for evolution to be true there would have to be a whole lot more transitional species—not just fossils of transitional species, but currently existing transitional species.
There are transitional species all around you. Considering that evolution is a continuous process, then, by definition, all species are transitional. Also, there exist living organisms at every "stage" of evolution--from simple colonies of identical but communal cells, through every level of complexity until you get to what we usually think of as the most complex organisms.
If you have ever noticed that children do not look exactly like their parents or each other, you have noticed a consequence of evolutionary forces at work.
As far as I know, the manner in which shape is obtained from genotype has never been described.
What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.
That is, I don’t think you can take a set of gene sequences and predict what shape will come of it, for example shape of extremities or shape of trunk region. Or how to change the gene sequences in order to produce a particular phenotype size or shape.
As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?