"Attempted confusion of the subject and making false argument about what I'm saying."
Then you need to better describe what you are trying to argue. Because when you talk about "kinds" in relation to biology, it sounds like you're essentially describing species or something very close to that.
If you're trying to make the argument that there is some other biological reality out there (besides reproductive isolation between populations), then you need to explain what that is.
Now the other thing to consider is that when talking about lineages, it's a given that one lineage will not evolve into a completely different lineage. Organisms are naturally bound by their own lineage of descent.
For example, let's assume there were only three created "kinds": Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota (the three domains of life). No matter how the descendants of those original organisms evolved and diversified over time, they will always ultimately belong to Archaea, Bacteria, or Eukaryota. A Eukaryote will never become a Bacteria. A Bacteria will never become an Archaea. And so on.
In fact, regardless of whether you believe those original three organisms evolved from a common ancestor or were specifically created, they are going to be bound by their lineage either way.
So when you claim that a "kind" will never evolve into another "kind", I have no idea what you're really trying to say. You're either claiming there is an inherently biological limit by which extant organisms can't evolve (which is a non-Bibilical argument), or you're simply pointing out that organisms are bound by their respective lineages. The latter of which would be for the most part true of both evolutionary or created origins.