In other words, your argument is "car's can't evolve because if an object that functions and looks like a car could evolve, then it wouldn't be a car". Is that a fair representation of your position? Do you see the circular logic here?
I don't see any circular logic in
Kylie's position. We define objects based on fundamental properties of that object. In the case of a car, it's an artificially-manufactured object designed for transporting individuals. And passenger cars get defined by additional criteria like number of axles and curb weight.
By their nature (being artificially manufactured objects made of metal, rubber and plastic), cars do not reproduce.
In order to have one which does reproduce we need to figure out how that could be possible. Which gives us a few options:
1) By magic, which seems to be
xianghua's argument. In which case we are dealing with purely fantasy objects. This also renders his entire argument moot as fantasy objects have no bearing on the real world.
2) By constructing an artificially manufactured object actually capable of reproduction. Which means constructing something capable of self-manufacturer, including resource gathering, refinement, and production. Which per
doubtingmerle's point, would be more akin to a mobile factory than a car.
3) Or fundamentally changing the object into something else entirely. For which the closest analog for an object used for transportation but also capable of reproduction is a horse. But nobody would confuse a horse with a car. They are fundamentally different things.
Those are your options. Only option #1 arguably gives you a car capable of self-reproduction, but since it's purely a fantasy object not bound by physical laws in the real world, any argument derived from it is irrelevant. And given #2 or #3, you're no longer dealing with a car.