Flores Hobbit or Microcephalic Human?
October 14th 2006 00:27
Flores Hobbit or Microcephalic Human? The Debate Continues…
There is still argument over the supposed type of hominid found in Flores in 2003. Some believe that this 18,000 year old individual is from a newfound species, Homo floresiensis – the “Hobbit”. Others reckon the creature is just a diseased early human, one with microcephaly.
As the name suggests, micro (small) –cephaly (brain) is a disorder in which the brain is smaller than average for the sufferer’s ages and sex. Hyperactivity and mental retardation often result, but unfortunately there is no treatment for microcephaly. In general, life expectancy for people with microcephaly is reduced and the prognosis for normal brain function is poor. It depends on what sort of abnormalities the sufferer has. Click here to read a short article and have a peak at what a microcephalic, modern human looks like.
Although microcephaly can’t be treated, it can now be prevented. Recently, some of the mutations in the gene for microcephaly have been found. Parents from families with a history of the disorder can have their newly conceived embryos tested. If the embryo has two copies of the mutation, it can be aborted.
An article from the New Scientist states that Robert Martin, of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, is on one side of the argument and believes that the idea of a species of small-brained, dwarf people is a fantasy. However, recently Colin Groves of the Autralian National University, Canberra, argued that Homo floresiensis has the wrong shape of skull for this individual to be a human with microcephaly and so it must be a separate species.
Dean Falk, from Florida State University, Tallahassee concurs. She says that her research shows that the skull doesn’t have features that 10 modern humans plagued by microcephaly have.
To solve this debate, what is really needed is a new skull to examine found in the same area. Until then, scientists can’t really do much.
There is still argument over the supposed type of hominid found in Flores in 2003. Some believe that this 18,000 year old individual is from a newfound species, Homo floresiensis – the “Hobbit”. Others reckon the creature is just a diseased early human, one with microcephaly.
As the name suggests, micro (small) –cephaly (brain) is a disorder in which the brain is smaller than average for the sufferer’s ages and sex. Hyperactivity and mental retardation often result, but unfortunately there is no treatment for microcephaly. In general, life expectancy for people with microcephaly is reduced and the prognosis for normal brain function is poor. It depends on what sort of abnormalities the sufferer has. Click here to read a short article and have a peak at what a microcephalic, modern human looks like.
Although microcephaly can’t be treated, it can now be prevented. Recently, some of the mutations in the gene for microcephaly have been found. Parents from families with a history of the disorder can have their newly conceived embryos tested. If the embryo has two copies of the mutation, it can be aborted.
An article from the New Scientist states that Robert Martin, of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, is on one side of the argument and believes that the idea of a species of small-brained, dwarf people is a fantasy. However, recently Colin Groves of the Autralian National University, Canberra, argued that Homo floresiensis has the wrong shape of skull for this individual to be a human with microcephaly and so it must be a separate species.
Dean Falk, from Florida State University, Tallahassee concurs. She says that her research shows that the skull doesn’t have features that 10 modern humans plagued by microcephaly have.
To solve this debate, what is really needed is a new skull to examine found in the same area. Until then, scientists can’t really do much.
| 65 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog





















Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Comment by RachDegab