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.
The assumption on your part is that fish morph into amphibians rather than amphibians were designed and created by re-using DNA code from fish.
We can look at automobiles that change each model year, and one could claim that they evolved or one could claim that their designers changed them.
Likewise, one can look at fish and amphibians and make either claim, so this clearly has NOTHING to do with whether or not fish or cars reproduce themselves.
Moreover, I already showed that fact to you, and you either failed to grasp it or chose to ignore it, when I pointed out that the VERY FIRST life form must have evolved from an inanimate object, and clearly you aren't going to claim that inanimate objects reproduce their own offspring.
Ergo, Reproduction hasn't been shown by you to be germaine to this debate. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with how cars change every year...
Just random changes that somehow (accidently ?) lead to improved (new) species .... or death.
According to evolutionary theory, the "species" CANNOT change itself, it just randomly mutates into something better.
There is no "Mother Nature" allowed, no design, allowed, nothing but random mutations. No species can change based on any amount of "want to" or "need to" change.