Summations Only

I think the herbivores might have been among those with the best chances. Most predators are also scavengers, and their new world would have had plenty of carcasses laying about. They likely would have chosen less strenuous feeding options. Since grasses are very quick to return after floods, fires, etc, herbivores would have had a better chance than most. Goats, sheep, and pigs, for example, have somewhat lower minimum viable populations than many other species. (Although, as I understand it, no vertebrates aboard the ark had a survivable MVP anyway!)Of course, the predators/scavengers would have had to share that bounty of dead flesh with glorious blooms of insects and worms, and the feast wouldn't have lasted long. This could have allowed their prey more time to get away, and would surely have hastened their predators' extinction.I think the platypus gives the greatest example of the absurdity of the flood story. They can't survive long without water or huge amounts of aquatic food (about 20% of their body weight each day). They're unequipped to gnaw on or digest carrion. They can't possibly climb mountains or survive freezing temps. There's no similar "kind" that creationists can claim that they super-duper-evolved from. Even with a divine airlift back to Australia, they were certainly doomed.

Ahhh ... That explains it all: The duck "kind" got all fruitfullish and multiplicative; and a few winged it over to Australia and settled in. They exchanged their feathers for fur but still lay eggs, betraying their ducky ancestry. The eggs must be soft-shelled instead of hard because they lay them too near the water, which makes them soggy and squishy.