I was wondering about this for a while when i came across a picture of Russian boxer Nicloai Valujev who looks like he has some Neanderthal DNA and i was wondering how effective will a Homo Sapiens be in a fight against a full blooded Neanderthal. Recent evidence do indicate humans outside of africa especially those in europe, middle east and south asia might have some Neanderthal DNA. Neatherthals were shorter than ancient homo sapiens according to research carried out on their skeletons. They were much stronger than modern humans, having particularly strong arms and hands. Homo sapiens had a slimmer body, lighter bones, longer legs and were taller. Homo Sapiens had larger legs, narrower hips, being taller and having lighter bones not only meant a reduction in body weight (less muscular fat) but a bigger stride, greater speed and a lower energy cost when moving the body, walking or running.
He looks more like Ruk than a Neanderthal. We all have some Neanderthal DNA within our DNA strands. Actually, David Pogue did a rather amusing PBS program on this. Comparing Neanderthals vs. homo-sapiens doesn't really make sense, because training/conditioning of the individual, as well as their nutritional state, will have a large impact on one's abilities. Athletically fit modern homo-sapiens are far more healthy than Neanderthals ever were. But biologically, the homo-sapien is probably more agile and certainly more intelligent. A swift and smart boxer has a better chance of taking down a large lumbering untrained opponent, than falling to it.
In a modern setting (eg, now) - We would easily take the victory, especially if the fight wasn't restricted to a hand-to-hand contest. Even then, given our development of martial arts and understanding of anatomy, we'd probably still have a reasonably good chance of picking up victory. The factor of evolutionary differences needs to be considered too. Homo-Sapiens have many physical improvements over the Neanderthals, given that there are three (known) stages of evolution between them. I'm not exactly sure of the timeline, but it would be safe to assume that the climate would be considerably colder during the time of the Neanderthals, which means they probably evolved with that climate in mind - possibly giving up speed in favour of endurance and strength, whereas Homo-Sapiens evolved in a warmer climate.
Speed, reach and especially technique beat raw power almost every time in a competitivve fist fight. I watch a lot of MMA, a stocky frame is usually a real disadvantage against a more lanky guy, all other things being equal. And that's assuming there not even a weight difference between the human and the neanderthal fighter. And I think in a truly no-rules fight, this disprepancy would be even more pronounced to the disadvantage of the smaller competitor.
Although if you pick an average human off the street and make him fight an average neanderthal, both without any special training, I suppose the neanderthal might have a chance, simply because he's fiercer and would have less inhibitions at clawing out your eyeballs and stuff like that.
And all the other proto-humans, which is why there's seven billion of us and nothing left of them but bones. The thread question is pointless. It's like asking who would win in a fight: A Marine sniper or Bambi?
^No, it's not. We almost became extinct. Homo Erectus could have easily be around today. Comparing Neanderthal vs Homo Sapiens to Marine Sniper vs Bambi is absurd. It would be like asking would would win in a fight, an Asiatic Elephant or a Wooly Mammoth. Also, one thing to consider. If we were to pluck a Neanderthal from the ice age, the Human fighter would be fighting someone who fights to survive, not for money. If the Neanderthal was not able to understand the purpose of the fight and fights for food or shelter, the Human fighter who fights for a check and the belt might be in trouble.
Modern thinking is different. While it seems that modern H. sapiens did outcompete the Neanderthals, it would be a mistake to interpret that competition in terms of genocidal war or one-on-one cage fights or something. More like just generally prospering more, surviving better, spreading farther. It's possible the Neanderthals could've succumbed to climate change that modern humans were better able to cope with due to more advanced technology and more adaptable behavior, or that they were more vulnerable to certain diseases due to differences in diet and lifestyle.
But. They're. Not. And there are seven billion Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus almost dominating means about as much as Rex Ryan almost getting the Jets to the Super Bowl twice. Same answer. Which one is around now? Horseshit. This assumes that there's no such thing as a modern human who would fight just as hard to survive. And the modern human has two advantages: greater intelligence and the ability to use tools, and a big, bulky dumb Neanderthal would be just as dead as Bambi going up against a Marine sniper with a rifle thinking "It's Bigfoot or me."
^I suggest you do some research before posting that. Being extinct doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to fight against their extant relatives, especially when they lived in different places. Just because we and the Asiatic elephants are still around doesn't mean we are better able to fight, survive. They died out due to factors that weren't in play for us. And the neanderthals created and used tools. Also, greater intelligence can be a handicap. However, Neanderthals were quite intelligent.
It's impossible to tell by looking at someone whether they possess "neanderthal DNA." You're no more or less likely to be sharing some genes with our neanderthal ancestors than that boxer. None of that is necessarily true. Random chance has a great deal to do with how evolution plays out. Homo Sapiens Sapiens possesses genetically greater intelligence and innately better tool-making ability than Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis? Unproven and unprovable. Your logic is not more persuasive than trying to determine whether a Buick or a Ford is a "safer" car by crashing a couple into one another and seeing who survives.
See, now, the Hulk is more powerful because the madder he gets, the stronger he gets. But the Thing can still beat him if he keeps his wits about him.
Riker wasn't turned into a Neanderthal there. The claim was that he'd turned into an Australopithecus, a much, much earlier hominid -- which was one of the more ludicrous statements in the episode, since Australopithecines were dainty herbivores, not ferocious giants.