A fact that Christians repeat often enough that more experienced Evolutionists have no real excuse to not know by now is that natural selection is the opposite of Evolution. While Evolution purports to explain the origins of various species, natural selection describes how they are culled. In other words, Evolution is a gain, natural selection is a loss.
While Evolution is the antithesis of Creation, natural selection is actually vital for creation based models. It explains why different people groups have different features despite being descended from one pair, it explains why we find creatures in the fossil record that are no longer around today, it explains minor discrepancies between the Bible's description of ancient species and their modern counterparts, and it explains how Noah could possibly have built an ark big enough to preserve land dwelling species from the flood.
But still Evolutionists don't understand the difference, so when they see that wild fruits are vastly inferior to cultivated fruits, they think this is excellent evidence that humans are related to monkeys. Yet, you don't even have to read four chapters into the Bible to see the flaw in this reasoning. First, even before man sinned, cultivated plants like fruit trees didn't fare well without us (Genesis 2:5-6). But after the fall, they became worse. Specifically, in Genesis 3:17-19, God described the horrible state in which the agricultural industry would be. Food would now be obtained in toil, by the sweat of our brow. In other words, Christians aren't expecting a perfect meal to grow on every fern. If we eat by the sweat of our brow, it's a wonder any wild fruit grows at all. Of course the wild fruit is going to be pitiful. If it wasn't, all we'd need to do is pick it.
Therefore, the argument that wild fruit is not as good as selectively bred and grafted fruit doesn't refute the Bible. Rather, it's exactly what we would expect to see if Genesis 3 is real history.