Actually research done on Neanderthal skulls do indicate they had larger cranial capacity than us Humans. That may not indicate superior intelligence but it is an important factor to consider. We should not underestimate their intelligence.
Well when humans and Neanderthals were around 50 000 years, we had other humanoid species like the denisovan hominins Homo floresiensis And BTW the Chinese have discovered what could be possibly be another humanoid species called Red Deer Cave People. They are waiting for more evidence before they can classify it as a new species http://www.theblaze.com/stories/red-deer-cave-people-may-be-new-human-species/ I see a cage fight between the 5 humanoid species
Except that every time someone tries using kryptonite to defeat Superman, they somehow manage to fail, unless it's an imaginary story or an alternate reality.
Thinking of Neanderthals as an entirely different species is mostly just a holdover from early theories that they were bestial hunch-backed brutes. They had speech, they took care of their old and injured, they probably had burial rites and thus some concept of religion, etc. etc. etc. As far as a fight, it would probably just depend on the individuals but I would give the edge to the Neanderthal. They weren't notably shorter than their Sapiens cousins (a couple inches on average) and were considerably more robust.
I don't see how one can really say that "A Neanderthal will always beat a Homo Sapiens" or vice versa. There are far too many variables. Intelligence, coordination, reflexes, muscle mass and tone, bone structure, stamina, endurance, vision, and just general overall health of the individuals would all affect the course of a fight, and that doesn't even take fighting technique or skill with weapons/tools into account. Sure, skeletal analysis of Neanderthals has given us a lot of general information on their body structure, but I'm sure there was a good deal of variation in all of these categories from one Neanderthal to another, just as there is in Homo Sapiens. Comparing Neanderthals to Homo Sapiens as they are today - as a general rule, most of us aren't really used to fighting since it isn't a part of most of our lives. Most of us lead rather sedentary lives and we don't really have any experience at having to hunt and kill our own food. On the other hand, people sich as boxers and other athletes, and especially people with military training, could almost certainly take a Neanderthal in even unarmed combat, unless there were some other random factor stacking the deck in the Neanderthal's favor. If you were to pit a Neanderthal against a Homo Sapiens as they were at the time that Neanderthals were still around, I imagine that some times the fight would go one way, and other times another. Each seems to have certain adevantages and disadvantages so I imagine that overall differences in individuals would still play an important, but unquantifiable, factor.
Aren't all the stories imaginary? By the way, Capt. Kirk beat up a dinosaur guy. A caveman should be no problem.
But it's always hilarious to see how stupid Superman really is. "What, do you think this leaded box is going to stop me?" Opens the box. "Oh, Kryptonite." Faints.
Of course, Kirk is not a modern day homo sapien. I would expect humans of the 23rd century to be a smidge smarter, faster, and stronger than their modern day counterparts. Case in point, how many people had broken the 4 minute mile 200 years ago?
Well, it's not like we'd send in your average man or woman as our Human combatant in this hypothetical fight. Rather, we'd try and find the best physical specimen from each side, in order to leave out the majority of doubts that either side "could have found a better specimen". With that reasoning, it would probably mean putting an Olympic level athlete(be it boxer or otherwise, as long as they are trained to fight), against the master hunter of a Neanderthal community.
^Of course it's not evolution, 200 years is far too short of a time for those sort of changes to come about naturally. Captain Kirk is still not a modern day homo sapien. And therefore has no more place in the conversation than Superman.
Here you imply evolution would give Kirk an advantage over modern humans, yet... Here you say the time is too short for evolution to be a factor. We can discount Kirk as easily as Superman as they are both fictional, though.
You can think I was implying whatever you like. As I wrote, I was mentally comparing athletes of the past century and how it was kind of a big deal when Bannister broke the four-minute mile in 1954. and now its a standard. A guy on my school track team ran under a four-minute mile semi-regularly. My intended implication was that by Kirk's time the human race would have improved physically and mentally many times over comparatively, and therefore should not be part of a Caveman/Astronaut competition. My implication was not that the humans of Star Trek might be different species than we are today through evolution.