How do Young Earth Creationists account for the arising of millions of species after the flood? In this debate, about 1:07:18, Bill Nye calculated that about 11 species per day must have been born since the time of the flood in order for the millions of current species to have evolved* from the mere thousands of different kinds that Ken Ham states would have been on the ark.  Ken Ham didn't address this issue later on in the debate.  How do Young Earth Creationists account for this great diversity of species?  Were every single offspring of each kind of animals separate species so that most of the species evolved* quickly after the flood?

EDIT: Here is how Bill Nye came up with his number:

4,000 Years since Ken Ham's flood:
7,000 Ken Ham's "kinds"
16,000,000 species today

4,000 years * 365.25 days per year = 1,461,000 days

Number_of_new_species_per_day = 15,993,000 species / 1,461,000 days = 11 new species per day since the time of the flood

*(By "Evolve," I am referring to micro-evolution)
I started to comment but I think I’ll turn it into an answer 

That is illogical. 

You cannot take the axioms/constants of one paradigm and use them to argue against another paradigm. By design they will conflict. They have entirely different presupposition and therefore modes of interpretation. 

You must prove within a paradigm that the axioms of that same paradigm are conflicting.

Thus far the Christian Young Earth paradigm is consistent both in its claims and its interpretation of the observable data because it doesn’t interpret the data from an evolutionary standpoint. 

The proposal Nye is putting forth is preposterous, he is superimposing big bang evolution over Creator and creation and expecting to find what the former claims as axiomatic, to be true in the latter. 

I do see his angle and for that reason he needs to correct course because his math is deceiving 

Firstly he is counting from the flood, let’s say it’s 4,000 years use round numbers. He cannot include all life forms in the waters because they were not destroyed by the flood. 

Also he is including microorganisms, there is no evidence they were destroyed.

Furthermore he is back tracking down to zero/one organism but the flood did not start with zero animals. 

Another point even though there is much more to be said from so many other angles, each animal after its kind diversified from 1 to 2 then to 4 then to 8 then to 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16,384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 262,144, 524,288, 1,048,576...Its exponential not linear. Within 20 replication cycles you can create whole different variation from the original mother and father genome combinations. Start switching off due to environmental selection or removing certain genes from the gene pool and you’re on you way to selecting one gene over another. You don’t even need 4,000 years. 

Factor into the above paragraph that most animals reproduce more than once in a life time and that they may also have many offsprings from the same copulation. That is an even greater climb than exponential growth. 

average implies a linear growth when it was most likely exponential

Adding one other detail. YEC starts from the premise that the genome for each kind started whole and with different alleles but with time was selected for certain genes; genes being selected out of the gene pool. That is not very difficult to understand, the process of losing information as opposed to the evolutionary model that necessitates an increase of new information. Granted YEC starts with a Creator but within the paradigm it remains consistent. Evolutionist have not yet proven one example of novel genetic sequence that has not been introduced artificially. 

So his premise is wrong. It’s an interesting idea but again intellectually dishonest because he chose not to inform himself of what YEC actually claim but rather strawmans a paradigm using axioms from a paradigm he favors and use a form of sophistry and debate rhetorics to overwhelm or command superiority when in fact it should be unemotional and well informed arguments that disprove the opposition in science not oratory 
!