Evolution is a word that lends itself to abuse by way of equivocation. In a nutshell, we have scientific evidence of what can be called <micro evolution> but to extrapolate that to mean there is evidence for <macro evolution> is where the problem lies.

Scientists can show that bacteria evolves, but to then to say that explains how bananas and humans evolved from the same stuff is just too much.

Perhaps animals of like kinds can develop differences, like wolves, coyotes and dogs, but we can't go beyond that and say that one <kind> of animal produces another <kind> of animal.

We have never seen an animal of one <kind> produce animals of other <kinds>. All animals that are of the dog kind produce more dogs etc...

Same is true for birds on isolated islands or spotted moths.

Evidence for <micro evolution>? Perhaps.

Evidence for <macro evolution>? None.

Zero.

Zip.

Nada.

The only <evidence> that exists isn't really evidence at all. You'll have one scientist point to another and say, just ask him, there's mountains of evidence. And then that scientist laughs and scoffs and refers to other mountains of evidence, but there really is no evidence.

All of the evidence, and it's important that people understand this, is in the imagination. We are <asked to imagine> how evolution could be true and that's all there is to it.

The only <evidence> that exists isn't really evidence at all.>

FWIW <You have seen sound evidence to indicate that it is in principle capable of making the whole journey, you don’t need to see it make the whole trip.>

<It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?

It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge.>

John Lennox's masterpiece, "Seven Days that Divide the World", has opened many people to the fact of long creation days. Now we present Dr Lennox's long-awaited sequel, "Three Days that Divide the World". Be prepared as Dr Lennox applies his great insights from his previous book to these pressing questions. He shows that Jonah was really billions of years in the great sea creature, and Jesus really spent millions of years in His tomb. Compare http://creation.com/review-lennox-s... by a colleague

A part of me is glad that the Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2017 has occurred. It gave chess pundits all over the world a gut-level perspective of the narcissistic generation syndrome debate, allowing them to concretely evaluate in real time the moves of a modern World Champion when faced with an unexpected Marshall type attack, and compare it with Capablanca's moves and performance when he had to face the same situation in 1918.

Current World Champion Carlsen crashed. On the other hand,

<Shajmaty: In 23 moves (between 14. ♕f3 and 36. ♗xf7+), Capablanca plays the best move (i.a.w. Stockfish) 21 times!>, and Capa ended up winning.

Examples:

Sicilian Scheveningen

Lasker vs Capablanca, 1936

Modern Benoni

Capablanca vs Janowski, 1924

Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927

Capablanca vs Marshall, 1927

(I think the Modern Benoni should be renamed into the Capablanca-Marshall)

Benko Gambit

Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1914

Marshall Attack

What scientific studies there have been about chess seem to support the <chunking hypothesis>, which holds that chess mastery comes from having a big repertoire of chess patterns. This does not require an increase in brain capacity.

Here's a typical citation: Gobet, Fernand, and Herbert A. Simon. "Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis." Memory 6.3 (1998): 225-255.

A quote from the abstract: "Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study..."

It could be that Capablanca had more, larger and better quality chunks than other masters of his time, but not necessarily of today's top players. I don't think it works to pick out an individual pair like Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 versus Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2017 to come to far-reaching conclusions; one would need a carefully defined methodology to compare as a whole the works of Capablanca, Carlsen, and their contemporaries.