The bananna was changed by human hands from a much different plant, as were apples, oranges, almonds, corn and all (or almost all) other domestic plants. The wild ancestor of the bananna plant had much harder and less sweet friut that was about the size of your index finger. The wild ancestor of the almond had enough cyanide in its seeds to make a grown man violently ill.
Even most domestic farm animals were changed by selective breeding over the years. If you want an example then check out the difference between a chicken breast from the 50's and today.
All you're talking about is micro-evolution or Variation. Variation is not in dispute. And variation doesn't support Macro-Evolution. So why, one asks, is it that evolutionists ALWAYS resort to this bait and switch argument.
Answer: Simply put, if they had evidence for macro-evolution, we'd hear no end of it. But, because there is no evidence for it, we are presented with appeals to variation as though it were the other thing at work. Bananas producing bananas is offered because they can't show Bananas macro-evolving into say, breadfroot. The reason why is simple. Bananas can be breeded to express specific traits just as anything else can. But ask the breeders if there is a limit to that expression and they will tell you that there is in no uncertain terms a limit to what breeding can accomplish. I've used hog breeding as an example in the past. And it's something most of you can check out for yourselves with local breeders. I am surrounded by them in Indiana. And they love to talk as much as the farmer loves to talk about his corn, beans, etc. They may not give away all their secrets; but, they'll tell you that if they could breed hogs up to an average of 2tons apiece, they'd have long ago done it for the killing they'd make on their per unit price.
With "evolution" the truth is largely not in what they will tell you - it is in what they will not only not tell you; but resist admitting at any cost.
While one can argue about technical names for 'species' of corn, bananas, green beans, etc. At the end of the day, we know by common names what will be produced by each when we plant them. It is a law of nature. If you plant a greenbean, that seed will grow greenbeans. If you plant corn, the seed will grow corn. Need I remind you that you give birth to kids with differing hair color, different facial features, different height, weight, etc.. day in and out. Science would declare them each a different species if they were corn. That is how the game is played. In the end, they're children and it is 'corn' or bananas or green beans. Technical labels may serve as an attempt to obscure this point. But, when boiled down, they don't get away with it. Here, they will scream about the technical names and tell us how ignorant we all are of 'speciation' for expecting the 'variation' or micro-evolution example they present as proof of macro-evolution to actually prove macro-evolution. They rely on you confusing the two and staying in the confusion over the two even while they banter on about the differences.
I planted a garden this year. I'm still tilling the soil and putting the seeds in the ground - and will actually be working out there tomorrow yet again. I planted starters
for green-beans, tomato plants, carrots, green peppers, onions, etc.. pretty long list. I planted those seeds knowing exactly what they will grow and produce. Farmers have counted on it for eons. The proof is in the countless ZILLIONS of seeds planted annually across the globe in the millions and billions of acres worth. Every seed, to the last one, will produce exactly what was planted. Plant corn and you will grow corn. If evolution were true, that could not be the case. Variation offers no support to Evolution as a theory. Until you actually see corn product non-corn, you aren't dealing with evolution. You are merely dealing with pretense.