Are temporary embryonic structures like gill clefts included under "Vestigeal organs"??
From where did you get that ,Sir?I mean something I can show my teacher as a proof??
I cannot write your homework for you ... you have to start from the definition you were given in class and then look a the examples you can find.
Vestigial organs are those which are present in the body but is no longer in use.They are those organs which are lost in the process of evolution due to the environment and conditions that no longer asks for their use.
All of us have a wisdom tooth but we don't use them.Homo erectus did.Since they were in jungles and they so badly needed it to bite the tamed wild animals.
Refer this web site
Vestigial Organs - American Museum of Natural History
This does not include the gill clefts.So it is easy assume that what Mr Bridge said was right.
And hey,You belong to my country too? Indian?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Plus, if you're talking about our ancestor, Homo erectus, biting otherwise tamed "wild" animals, who is the the untamed wild animal here, the tamed wild animals or the untamed hungry hominoid that likes to go around biting less intelligent non-hominoid creatures..Huh? Did you ever think about that?!
I was thinking that embrionic structures don't count ... but now I think I can argue either way.
Probably why its a question for homework.
It's more important to learn to reason which is why we prefer not to just hand out answers.
Still, it's been a while... safe now.
Note: there is no reason to think the list in the AMNH is comprehensive.
@DiracPool curious wee rant... just thinking about it a bit more:
Before an animal can be tamed, it must first be wild. Hence, "tamed wild animal" is a tautology, not an oxymoron.
We don't usually think of humans as wild or tame except metaphorically, these words are more usually reserved for animals as distinct from "people".
In this case it seems reasonable to allow homo erectus "person" status, for the sake of discussion.
Any person who eats meat usually procedes by biting an animal ... perhaps part of one that is dead and cooked.
Some animals do get swallowed whole and live when eaten though.
No judgement is made here on whether this or any other behaviour is tame or otherwise.
This does not indicate or imply a lack of thought on the subject.
I suspect that English is not Docscientist's first language, though I had no trouble with what he wrote.
The definition of a tautology is the "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word." An example of a tautology would be the phrase, "A beginner who has just started.”
In the context of the present discussion, the statement "A tamed animal that is controllable" would be an example of a tautology. Similarly, the statement "A wild animal that is non-domesticated" would also qualify as a tautology.
The definition of an oxymoron, on the other hand, is "a combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings."
The words "tamed" and "wild" are classified as antonyms of one another and their juxtaposition in the phrase "tamed wild animals" qualifies that phrase as an oxymoron, not a tautology.
"Tame wild animals" would be an oxymoron, but "tamed wild animals" is not. I will explain if anyone finds it necessary.
Please do, I would be obliged
Well 'tame' and 'wild' are opposites, so tame wild is an oxymoron - they cannot be described by both adjectives at the same time.
Whereas 'tamed' is not an adjective but a past participle, an animal can be both when not at the same time.
The word "tamed" used in the said target phrase "tamed wild animals" is a past participle, but it it is a past participle functioning as an adjective, so it does qualify as an adjective.
I'm not sure what this means, did you mean to say, "an animal can be both but not at the same time"?
Also, this phrase, "they cannot be described by both adjectives at the same time." You mean they as referring to the word "animals," correct, not the words "tamed" and "wild?"
As Simon Bridge, though, alluded to, Doc's first language doesn't seem to be English, so there's some interpretation that needs to be injected into the grammar. Let's look at the passage more broadly, "All of us have a wisdom tooth but we don't use them.Homo erectus did.Since they were in jungles and they so badly needed it to bite the tamed wild animals."
If you look at the passage in it's broader context, you'd have to agree that Homo erectus was not roaming the jungle two million years ago looking to bite tamed wild animals. Animals did not become domesticated until the Neolithic era, roughly 12,000 years ago, whereas Homo erectus went extinct about 100,000 years ago or even earlier. So there was no biting of tamed wild animals going on anywheres in the jungle anyways back then
Quite correct - Doc has made an error of fact.
I suppose I could have responded that the broader context does not support the interpretation of "tamed wild" as an oxymoron ... it's just that the narrow context doesn't either and I thought the broader context was easy to discern.
I thought you were just having fun...
I wonder if we need a special forum for this stuff so it doesn't hijack the thread?
It is not clear if "tamed wild animals" means a species that has resulted from breeding to produce a population of animals that is easily domesticated (many generations) or if it means a group of individuals from a wild species that has been trained (each individual generation taken from the wild and trained).
This thread has gone severely off topic and is closed.
Separate names with a comma.