According to the Bible, plants reproduce according to their kinds, just as animals do. What constitutes a "kind" appears to be cross-fertility. (Genesis 1:11,12) Just as with animals, there is great potential for variety within a plant "kind", allowing for hybrids. The same lack of evidence for evolution of animals applies to plants as well. "Darwin's model of evolution....being basically a theory of historical reconstruction,... is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science." (Evolution - A Theory in Crisis)
I see no indication in the Biblical account that cross-fertilization between different species is possible.
Mutation has occured that has allowed for fertile off-spring between species that generally cannot produce fertile off-spring, and we have also forced mutations to be able to mix different plants. As we know from genetics, mutations occur quite often, and since plants don't have the same criteria for reproducing and getting food as animals do, there's a lower chance that the mutations will be detrimental to the plant's ability to live on, since it has no need to hunt or prove to other plants that it is indeed worthy of reproduction.
The science of evolution has evolved beyond Darwin's model (pun intended). What would you say constitues evidence of evolution? I'm assuming that you're familiar with what is presented as evidence (huge collection of fossils, genetic similarity, endogenous retroviruses etc).
As we have observed plants transcend species (through polyploidy, for example), speciation is indeed proven to be true. What genetic evidence is there that a plant can only change within it's "kind"? How genetically different can a plant become before it would leave it's "kind"? What would be the scientific definition of a "kind"? The word "kind" is one I have a trouble with as specifying what species a plant belongs to isn't the easiest thing, and to my understanding, if everything was created according to it's "kind", then this "kind" should be easily identified, which is not the case. Wheat and rye belong to different genus, and they have been successufully hybridized in a lab. Would you say that this is impossible in nature, or that they can indeed be related, even though they cannot normally breed?
For a great example of plant evolution, we can look at the genus brassica of the brassicaceae family (that was mentioned earlier in the topic, the mustard plant). There's a theory called Triangle of U that shows the evolutionary relationship between different species in the brassica genus, such as broccoli and mustard.
Triangle of U - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Observations in science don't have to be in real-time to be valid. You are misrepresenting scientific method and bringing whole fields of science down in the process, since not all science is based on real-time observations. When it comes to time spans, we must also recognize that evolution takes time. Some plant speciation is seen in a single generation, but most of the time evolution is a very slow process.
And just for fun: They recently found Vaccinium myrtillus x vitis-idaea (european blueberry and lingonberry hybrid) in Sweden. Very rare hybrid, and rarely fertile, but this time it was, and had spread in a tiny area. They called it "blingon".
