There should be one for creation up to the flood (when there was massive extinction to account for all those fossils eh?) followed by a winnowing back to the original kinds (one\seven pair representing each kind) followed by another orchard of variation and adaptation to the present day.
Not only that, but the basal organisms at the beginning of one orchard should be similar (identical not needed) with representatives of the same kinds as the basal organisms at the beginning of the other orchard.
Yes,
assuming only two of each
kind was taken.
The Book says:
[color:"brown"]"...And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."[/color]
—Genesis 6:19
Stong's says concerning "every (sort)":
[color:"brown"]"From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever)."[/color]
So, we have to figure out what a "sort" is.
Taken together, it seems that there was minimal variety at the time of the ark because of the relatively short time between organic creation and the flood. After the hydrorecession, much more time was available to allow the expression of the designed existing genetic variation.
Of course, this variation is possible in these periods because no genetic mutations need to occur, only expressions of existing information.
We can discuss these issues later, but the point here is that we are dealing with tracing the evidence backwards from the present day to see if we end up with a single tree, two trees, a small number of trees or an orchard of trees.
With all due respect, it's pretty hard to trace this type of distribution this long after a catastrophe of this type.
---
[color:"brown"]"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."[/color]
—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
[color:"brown"]"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."[/color]
—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
