Joined: May 2006
You seem to be honest in your desire for feedback, so I will give you honest critiques. Gee, where to start? The beginning, I guess.
Science doesn't really say anything for or against points A and B. They aren't questions that science can address. (At least not at this point in time. It might be possible in the future, but it might not be possible either.)
In point C, you immediately start to limit yourself in a way that science does not. "I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially. Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later) " Why won't you make a claim? Is it because the claim could be tested and found to be wrong? Science makes hypotheses that are tested all the time. You're already starting on a nonexistent foundation.
In point D, you finally make a claim: "It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans. Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years." What evidence do you have for this claim? Any fossils of humans taller than today's humans? Any archaelogical digs that show structures designed for tall humans or very large families? (No, the Bible doesn't count as evidence. There are places in the Bible that say bats are birds, so I'm not confident in the Bible as a source of scientific evidence and knowledge.)
Later in point D: "The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration." Again, why "assume"? Why not look for evidence?
Your chain of "abductive logic" has glaring flaws and weaknesses from the get go.