The evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding would argue that, yes, they could be very close friends indeed.
Who would win a fight between a Neanderthal and Human
- Thread starter EmoBorg
- Start date
The evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding would argue that, yes, they could be very close friends indeed.
That doesn't mean they're friends.
There is a series of sci-fi novels (can't remember the author) which partly take place on a parallel Earth which is inhabited by Neanderthals. They are as intelligent as humans are on our Earth.
That doesn't mean they're friends.
But it does mean they had other forms of interaction than fighting. Probably ran the whole gamut of interactions, including trade and cultural exchange along with the rest.
But you're talking about athletes who have trained for a particular event or events not the average human.
Genetic alteration is already here in medicine. It won't be long before they start applying it to enhancement. The humans of 2300, assuming we survive that long, will likely be far more different in comparison to us than we are to Neanderthals. They may even be us, clinging to life through genetic modification and other technological advancements.
Going back to the fight concept...isnt it likely that Neaderthals, while posessing the physical strength might not have possessed the same level of ferocity/capacity for violence than we did? All things being equal, it seems reasonable that the more violent of the two would be the one more likely to win in the long run.
I could see Neanderthals putting their considerable strength to good use simply trying to survive (finding food/shelter etc). Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have seen survival as best being achieved via expansion and warfare.
Its facinating that we've long arrogantly assumed that they were the more savage of the two when it seems probable that HSS was likely the one more prone to violence.
I could see Neanderthals putting their considerable strength to good use simply trying to survive (finding food/shelter etc). Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have seen survival as best being achieved via expansion and warfare.
Its facinating that we've long arrogantly assumed that they were the more savage of the two when it seems probable that HSS was likely the one more prone to violence.
Going back to the fight concept...isnt it likely that Neaderthals, while posessing the physical strength might not have possessed the same level of ferocity/capacity for violence than we did? All things being equal, it seems reasonable that the more violent of the two would be the one more likely to win in the long run.
I could see Neanderthals putting their considerable strength to good use simply trying to survive (finding food/shelter etc). Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have seen survival as best being achieved via expansion and warfare.
Its facinating that we've long arrogantly assumed that they were the more savage of the two when it seems probable that HSS was likely the one more prone to violence.
I could see Neanderthals putting their considerable strength to good use simply trying to survive (finding food/shelter etc). Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have seen survival as best being achieved via expansion and warfare.
Its facinating that we've long arrogantly assumed that they were the more savage of the two when it seems probable that HSS was likely the one more prone to violence.
Usain Bolt being faster than Jesse Owens has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with evolution, but all with advances in sports science, nutrition, equipment and
drugs.
More likely it was cultural factors like better hunting tools, larger communities, etc. that decided the success of HSS over HSN. An interglacial period or even just a particularly warm couple of centuries would have given HSS good reason to push up into HSN territory in Europe and out-compete them in a more favorable climate. Nothing I've seen suggests that it was intentional warfare.
Re-read my fucking post. I never said it had anything to do with evolution. I made the implication that since athletes are drastically more athletic now than they were 200 and even 50 years ago, they'd likely be even more athletic and then I used the example of the four-minute mile. That was it. I’m well aware of advances in nutrition, science, equipment, and of course drugs. I think the mistake I made was calling Kirk a “modern day homo sapien”. My emphasis was on “modern day” not “homo sapien”.
I never used the word evolution. I never cited any pseudo-science. Hell, I wasn’t even the one who brought up Kirk.
When I imagine Sapiens vs. Neanderthals, I see two boxers -- one small and light on their feet, the other large and powerful, but not fleet-footed.
Most recent work that I've seen on them tends towards the latter taxonomy, particularly following the recent discoveries about their contributions to the Eurasian gene pool.Has the scientific community decided yet whether Neanderthals were a separate species (H. neanderthalensis) or a subgroup of our own species (H. sapiens neanderthalensis)?
In any case, they were pretty powerful-looking mofos.
That image is pretty outdated btw. Reconstructions tend to give them a proper neck these days.
