Question about "cavemen"

[Klorox]

Is a caveman a homosapien, or is it one of the other types of man?

I think of the weirdest things while stuck in traffic...

[johnny]

Well, Bin Laden lives in a cave, so he fits the caveman profile, exept he's a pig that hides in a cave, so i'm a little confused here.

I assume you mean the Neanderthal and such, which would make them homosapiens, the very first.

[Klorox]

I'm pretty sure a neanderthal is not a homo-sapien though.

EDIT: From Wikipedia

For many years, professionals vigorously debated about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[7] Recent genetic simulations suggested that 5% of human DNA can only be accounted for by assuming a substantial contribution of Neanderthaler to the European gene pool of up to 25%.[8] Some scientists, for example Milford Wolpoff, argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species. Others, for example Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"

Apparently, if you look up "cavemen" on the same site, it's a very misleading term, and can refer to neanderthal, homosapiens, and cro-magnon man as well.

[ 06-28-2007, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Klorox ]

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Klorox: Apparently, if you look up "cavemen" on the same site, it's a very misleading term, and can refer to neanderthal, homosapiens, and cro-magnon man as well.

Must be because "cave-man" is a very scientific term.

[Klorox]

LOL, that's the beauty of wikipedia.

[Lucern]

That exerpt seems like a rare contribution by an expert wikipedian. One who doesn't care if anyone understands it lol. Here's the deal with neanderthals as I can account for it in a recent graduate seminar in physical anthropology. People once wanted badly to believe that neanderthals (homo neanderthalensis) were a dead end and that we weren't at all related to them. This is becoming harder to defend.

Some people still cling to it, but it's most likely that neanderthals branched off of (archaic) homo sapiens geographically in Europe, which was basically an ice sheet. This population, isolated, got several characteristics that make sense for surviving on an ice sheet, such as their thick, massively strong bodies. Their technology has been called more primitive (mostly mousterian technology) than homo sapiens, but it's hard to say that their own didn't work better than other technologies in their terrain. There's little reason to believe they were stupid as often depicted. Lastly, it's very likely that some of the populations were killed by the later influx of homo sapiens, but it's also very likely that many neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens. Their features are downplayed in modern populations because of the small amount of them compared to homo sapiens. What's all this mean? That they were significantly different, yet still were a part of the homo sapiens species.

Of course, lots of them lived in caves

edit: gah...two more posts before the dreaded purple egg. Better make the next one count lol.

[ 06-28-2007, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[Iron Greasel]

Cavemen have worse starting equipment than barbarians, but get no luck penalty for eating humanoids.

[Kakero]

To me, cavemen is a just a simple generalization of the human species who live in caves long long long time ago.