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...
An expansion of what I did say earlier:
The first self-replicator has to arise by purely random processes, yes. There is no process of variation and natural selection, since there is no replication. Once you do get to a self-replicting entity, even if it's a simple molecule, the game of evolution is on. We did at least one thread (with continuation) on the subject recently.
Abiogenesis and evolution are generally considered to be different subjects since you can't explain A with B and A is over once B is going. Abiogenesis is also a favorite hiding place of evolution-deniers since actual evidence of what happened back when is likely to be scarce for some time. But it's a dodge.
However life got started, it started close to 4 billion years ago. Since then, it has evolved quite a bit.