Why is the elephant man refered to as such? Why compared to that animal?
370424
The name Elephant Man comes from the name of the disease Joseph Merrick was originally diagnosed with - elephantiasis (usually called elephantitis).\n\nHe did not suffer from this disease, however.  He most likely had Proteus Disease.\n\nNeither he nor his mother were trampled by elephants.\n\nInterestingly enough, I remember reading somewhere that one of his doctors said he bore a resemblance to the Hindu god Ganesha, who is depicted as having the head of an elephant.  I don't know if this has any basis in fact.
301641
It wasnt Animal.  It was one of those hippie guys and 2 monster looking things.  I just watched it the other day! (we bought the DVD set) LOL
84858
The elephant. I know what's a cockfore...
1181780
Cartoonist Thomas Nast came up with both symbols in Harper's Weekly in 1874.\n\nThe donkey was clothed in a lion skin and scared away the animals at the zoo. The elephant was labeled Republican party.\n\nTwo years later, Nast drew the elephant trampling Samuel Tilden (the democratic candidate that year)
504756
Why?  Do you want to marry one?  I think we have an elephant asking the question.  Will the human being please turn up!
450506
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant\nCheck the bibliography section at bottom\n\nhttp://elephant.elehost.com/\nEverything elephants!
594696
Assuming you mean - in general why do elephants testis etc. not hang away from their body.\n\nThe answer is basically because it prevents them from being damaged while walking (being dragged), or from predators leaping up towards the animal.\n\nBecause we stand on two legs we're more readily prepared to fight whatever comes at us from the front.\n\nOther animals on fours have no underbelly protection so they pull in the testis in an adaptive way which basically protects their species ability to reproduce.\n\n\n----\nHope this helps you.\nEnjoy zoology, I hear it's terribly hard.
787511
The Donkey was supposedly used by Andrew Jackson as a symbol in his 1828 campaign, though this story may be apocryphal.\n\nBoth representations are generally attributed to 19th century political cartoonist Thomas Nast, who used the animals to represent the parties in his comics.
892700
I believe they are the same kind of creature.  There is an ape that was thought to be exintic gigantise pithagous, this is spelled wrong I know, I think some still live in remote areas and with man going into these areas they now are seen more often
824432
a republican is the elephant and the democrat is the donkey. I alway remember it this way: an elephant(to me) is considered a luxury animal:doesn't do a lot of work, just eats and gets fat. A donkey, on the other hand, is a hard-worker, gets little respect and earns his keep. A republican sterotypically is rich,is interested in big businesses, while a democrat is underpaid, and ready to make change for the better(can you tell which party I'm supporting this election?)
983067
I cannot get over the stupidity of those of you who answer thinking that the question is comparing gays to animals.  The writer is merely pointing out that natures considers homosexuality as normal. Animals having that instinct canot be blamed on intellectual choice or mental illness the way antigayists try to portray.  So please if you want to answer the question, try understanding it first.\n\nThat said, most antigayists are homophobic, which really means they are fearful and fear means "what can happen to me? How can thishurt me?  Subconsciously the fear is they themselves may be gay if they allowed themselves to accept it in others.  Why fear that? because then they believe they may be ostracized by their friends, familiy and neighbors and perhaps by their GOD.    Animals, which include humans, by the way....mammal.......there is no intellect. Man is the only mammal withy extensive intellect and reasoning.  If we take that away, tere would be no fear and no ostracism.  There would merely be survival. It is clear that despite homosexual behavior in animals, that is not a concommitant of their extinction ior being endangered , the continue to survive.  In this analysis antigayism is fear based and there is no good reason for it to be wrong.
227954
Maybe the hole was too small for the elephant but the just big enough for the tail so the tail got stuck.  That's the problem with having an elephant as a pet.
821737
i can understand why they do it but...\n\ni dont agree because animals are not humans and they do have different d.n.a to us.
718204
the mighty elephant has a special foot design. it walks on its tip toes .the elephants foot is designed to step first with his toes then the pad of the foot covers the area that it is stepping on and then take his step this muffles the sound of breaking stick under foot making the elephant very quit as it walk Thur the jungle
516120
The elephant is part of the Coat of Arms of Coventry.\n\nHere is the explanation as to why:\n\nMary Dormer Harris, the local historian thought that the elephant had a religious symbolism. The ancient 'Bestiaries' works of unnatural History, treat animals as religious types, and it is from these works that many of the animals and birds in church architecture derive. \n\nThe elephant is seen, not only as a beast so strong that he can carry a tower - Coventry's castle - full of armed men, but also as a symbol of Christ's redemption of the human race. The animal, according to one of the 'Bestiary' stories, is supposed to sleep standing, leaning against a tree. Hunters sever the trunk, and he falls helpless to the ground, until a small elephant approaches and pulls him up with his trunk. \n\nThe elephant, then, is a dragon slayer and is associated with a tree. There is a now forgotten tradition of dragon-slaying in the neighbourhood - Coventry is said to be the birthplace of St George, who slew the dragon. \n\nIn the medieval mind, the elephant suggested the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and did not merely symbolise strength.
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
171678
I think waht your talking about is what is called the elephant man disease and didnt think there was a cure