I'm going to preface this by saying that my intention is to educate, not to offend.
There are genetic components which effectively debunk Ken Ham's "family" argument. The homeobox genes.
Homeobox (HOX) genes refer to a set of ~235 genes present in every single animal species. These genes follow similar patterns within all species, and have the exact same pieces of genetic code preceding them. These highly conserved genetics refer to body parts in a similar way to how a person would code in HTML. A head section, a body section, leg sections, arm sections, etc. It's only the content after these pieces (like after a <header> tag) that differ among species. There have been experiments in which biologists removed the highly-conserved "tag" parts of the HOX gene in a fruit fly embryo and replaced them with the equivalent HOX gene extracted from a human cell. The fly developed and grew completely normally.
This might seem confusing to non-biologists, which is why it isn't taught in your average course. But the connotations are clear; the genetics in all animal species shares a common ancestor.
Also, directed to the people above who believe that the origins of life is a hole in the evolutionist argument, I give you the Miller-Urey experiment.
Two scientists, way back in the 50's simulated the early-Earth atmosphere environment in a sealed, closed-system, and added heat radiation and electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This combination of chemicals, electricity, and heat actually created over 20 amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins. In addition, this experiment was adjusted in 2007-2008 to include an extra proportion of certain chemicals that are released by volcanic eruptions, because there is geological evidence of such eruptions having occurred. They managed to produce an even wider variety of amino acids.
There was also a study which determined that RNA could have easily started reproducing itself by accident, given stable conditions. In addition, it is common knowledge in biology that fatty acids (such as phospholipids) naturally form bubbles similar to the cellular membranes found across all forms of life. I don't have links to these, though, because I don't remember the names of the studies.
Now, a common argument for Creationism in general is that it's technically possible. Well yes. But it's also possible that the world was created yesterday, under the same argument. Possible, but not at all probable. Similar to the chance of the molecules in my hand aligning just right with the molecules in my keyboard so that my hand falls into the keyboard, molecularly, and gets stuck. Technically possible, but statistically impossible.