What makes you think that? What did reproduction have to do with the very first life-form-evolving-from-an-inanimate-object, for instance?! Surely you aren't going to claim that inanimate objects reproduce offspring!
I pointed out that vehicles can retain similarities among models over the years. Surely you don't disagree with that fact?!
With the automobiles, we KNOW for a fact that it is the designers who are making the changes, NOT the cars per se themselves.
That's very analagous to how life started and was modified over the ages, whether or not it is the correct explanation is another matter altogether, however.
The car-example simply serves as a rather useful method to get those indoctrinated in psuedo-science (e.g. Evolutionary Theory) to think outside their small boxes.
With the cars, almost anyone can see that an Intelligent Designer is required to make changes to the various car models over the years.
You aren't denying that living things do reproduce themselves just like automobiles don't? That changes things, or it should. Are you being intentionally dense here?
When we see one particular line of fish morphing into amphibians in ascending layers of the geologic column, one particular line of dinosaurs morphing into birds, what we see has parallels with even smoother changes we can see in the fossil record. It has parallels with the evolution of microorganisms we see happening now. It has parallels with observed instances of speciation in modern times.
When you see a car, you not only have to assume a designer but you can identify the designer. When you see an organism, you can't prove a designer and don't have to assume one.