Then call it just one big kind. Until you have individual cells that split into little copies of themselves, and some measure of defense against foreign DNA sneaking in and being accepted as part of their own, there just isn't a good definition of "species". That's why they say the Tree of Life is tangled around its roots.
(Also remember that according to evolution, every organism probably was able to mate with its parents - even when part of a population that was in the process of becoming a separate species from its parent species. So each living creature has reproduced after its kind.)
> evolution jumps out of the parameters of "living creature after his kind".
No, it doesn't. No evolutionist posits that a fish laid an egg that hatched the first true amphibian; it was a series of slow, small steps,a bit at a time. If you had a baby with fingers 25% longer than normal, and his kid had fingers 25% longer still, and he then moved to a desert island with a harem of chicks and then 100 generations later thare is a new species of human with fingers a yard long and incapable of interbreeding with other humans... at what point did the one living creature give birth to another living creature not of it's kind?