Tomorrow is the anniversary of Charles Darwin's death. That's just by chance, since I was going to post this anyway.
I heard an argument from an anti-evolution person. (Not personally--it was on a video.) Someone had been talking about dog breeding, and how amazing the varieties of dog were. The anti-evolution person made the "point" that no matter how much breeding was done, you still had a recognizable dog. In other words, I guess, just because you can get major changes, it doesn't mean one species can turn into another.
I have to ask, then, just what is this insuperable barrier between species, if you're allowed to change size, shape, color, activity and any other thing controlled by genetics? It's true all dog breeds are dogs--no one, as far as I know, is trying to breed dog-monsters--though maybe I'm wrong about that, not really being up on dog breeding. (Didn't people breed wolves into dogs? Or does that count?)
But while no one wants a dog-monster (I'm assuming), they're not so fastidious about fruits and vegetables. There you breed for better eating (and perhaps certain aesthetic values).
So I was pleased to find a video that actually compares wild versions of plants with domesticated versions we eat. In some cases, if just shown the wild version, I don't think you'd be able to guess what it became.