Not to worry. New species will evolve. Did you know that given sufficient time a frog CAN turn into a prince? Amazing, eh?
Can someone out there explain to me how the eye evolved? I can see how a creature with a longer neck or a bigger horn or faster legs has an advantage and survives to pass those characteristics on. But what advantage is a partially evolved eye that does not yet see anything…not even distinguishing light from dark? An eye that works a little bit would help, but one that’s in it’s initial stage of evolution is useless to the owner and it’s offspring. Come to think of it, a partially evolved eye that doesn’t yet distinguish light from darkness is a bizarre thought in itself. What would prompt such a development?
Try hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/eyes.htm for starters E=Fb.
Meantime back on off topic. Why should we be so much more bothered about the loss of a species of magnificent big beast than any other smaller uglier being?
And why are some “experts” now talking of charging trophy hunters big bucks to shoot an African elephant to “save the species”. What??!!
Trisha
I really hate to see species endangered, and specially, the large cats are indeed a magnificent example of the Creator’s craftsmanship, but, the tigers might have fared a little better had they not made such a general nuisance of themselves, attacking people and animals all the time.
With you, Trisha.
Always much more coverage when cute or spectacular animals disappear.
While I’m sure insects get exterminated every day. Bees in France from pesticides, just to quote the latest.
And genetic engineering of seeds is directly aimed at the eradication of the equivalent botanical species, plus their associated insects…
Urban myth IMHO. Tried my best, gave it sufficient time–to no avail.
Maybe the wrong kind of princess, or wrong kind of froggie kiss? 
Yeah, bad tiger! Bad!
Of course, all the nutters in the far east paying big bucks in order to eat tiger are just doing it to protect themselves and their lifestock. :roll:
As far as I am concerned, being beaten slowly to death with anodized Overton low As is too good for 'em (the nutters, not the tigers)!
I suspect she just didn’t want to blow her cover for you, Zub. 
I’ll take that as your characteristic dry-to-the-point-of-crumbly irony, Walden. Sorta like the homing (or was it carrier?) pigeon, flying all over and into people’s gardens and crapping all over the place, right? That bird just HAD to go. We almost got it right with the North American bison. Just can’t lay down a railroad track or a decent road without Nature getting in the way. At least we can fence 'em in now. Besides, tongue is overrated. 
Tigers for the most part are highly reclusive. The pressures of habitat loss can drive them to unfortunate interactions with the human side, and I suspect that tigers would rather leave us alone for the most part. We’re talking about a trade in body parts that is driving the decimation, not self-protection from an isolated Sumatran population reduced to only around 500, give or take, and dropping. I got rheumatizz, man! I need those tiger bones, and the fresher the better. Screw ibuprofen. Sure, it’s cheaper by a long shot, but hey, bones are traditional.
before having to go “back” to paid employment, I did a lot of volunteer work at CREW (the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Wildlife) at the Cincinnati Zoo. The premis of CREW is to have genetic “material” - be that embryos or plant tissue - frozen until such a time that you need to bring it back. Of course, having the embryo frozen also means you need to be able to have a surrugate give birth.
Cats are very unique creatures (doing hooved mammals was MUCH easier). Not to go into specifics, but just getting a viable embryo was very hit and miss - plus the surrugates tended to “eat” the young if you didn’t get them away immediately after birth.
Unfortunately, when you get to the numbers like this tiger species - you CAN’T have a viable wild population - there is not enough genetic diversity left to survive a disease outbreak or something.
It’s a very difficult subject, with no clear cut answers. If you feel strongly about such things, however, check out the work at your local zoos. Zoos are no longer about “displaying” animals. They are really for the SURVIVAL of species.
Missy
Yeah, but it’s a pretty slow process. Of course, it’s said that over 90-percent of all species that ever lived are extinct–and only a relatively tiny percentage of those were wiped out by humans, but it’s still a shame. This is a nice example of how magical thinking and traditional “medicine” are not just harmless cultural artifacts.
Can someone out there explain to me how the eye evolved? I can see how a creature with a longer neck or a bigger horn or faster legs has an advantage and survives to pass those characteristics on. But what advantage is a partially evolved eye that does not yet see anything…not even distinguishing light from dark? An eye that works a little bit would help, but one that’s in it’s initial stage of evolution is useless to the owner and it’s offspring. Come to think of it, a partially evolved eye that doesn’t yet distinguish light from darkness is a bizarre thought in itself. What would prompt such a development?
Given my board name, how can I resist this? There are currently a variety of animals that have “eyes” in various stages of development. The simplest recognizable stage is just a clump of cells that are a bit more sensitive to light than the surrounding cells. That alone may be enough for a flatworm to sense a cow’s foot coming down, or a hungry bird hovering above. Then there are similar cells in a depression, which makes the apparatus more directional–making it easier to know which way to scoot to avoid that cow foot. Next comes a deeper depresion with the opening closing in enough to provide some focussing of the light (like a pinhole camera). Finally, let a little scaly skin cover the depression, and you have the beginning of a lens. Each step is a bit more efficient than the previous one.
It’s said that single-lensed, focusing eyes evolved three different times, one in vertebrates, one in the octopus family, and one more that I don’t recall.
Now, can you tell me which vertebrate has four eyes? (No, it’s not the nerd. Hint: light covers a wider spectrum than we can see.)
Certain snakes (“pit vipers”) have apparati to detect the infrared spectrum, is that what you’re referring to?
You did: the North-American bison is extinct AFAIK. Note that with a keen sense for ecological balance, they also suppressed its main predator: the Great Plains Indians…
I reckon those bisons you have now repopulated had to be straight imports (or maybe hybrids?) of Polish Zubr’s (European bison).
This, and the wolves, you think they’d learn?
There’s still more room for genocide in the open sea with the LFAS :
Yep, the “pits”. That was fast. 
From http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/hidden_worlds/story/9d05266ca
"The pit organ consists of a large outer cavity and a smaller inner cavity separated by a membrane, the outer surface of which detects heat. A tubular duct, leading from the inner pit to a pore in front of the eye, can be closed or opened to equalize pressure between the two cavities, thus controlling the sensitivity of heat-detecting cells. A pit’s temperature must be the same as that outside, thus allowing the snake to determine the difference between a mouse and its own cool body.
Nerves leading from the pit carry information to the reptile’s brain where an infrared image is perceived almost like vision from the eyes. “Imaging” is no doubt true, for the brain’s optic lobes that process nerve impulses from the eyes also receive this thermal information, therefore some scientists believe the two images – light and infrared – are blended together in the snake’s brain despite coming from entirely different sense organs.
Like the cross-over of optic nerves from one eye to the opposite side of the brain, nerves from the pits also cross, conveying information from the left pit to the right side of the brain, and vice versa. This is the design that gives us visual depth perception, and the identical arrangement with infrared images provides depth perception for a pit viper.
This binocular heat sense is heightened when a hunting snake moves its head back and forth, scanning for the exact position of a small rodent previously seen or smelled."
Not extinct, but the gene pool became frightfully small; extinction nearly did happen. The North American bison’s once near-depleted population has increased with careful management, but the old free-ranging herds in their millions aren’t likely to be the norm again, at least as things are now. As for hybridizing, I’m unaware that this might have been done at all for the sake of these herds. To my best knowlege, the isolated herds extant have been occasionally bred with each other for as much genetic diversity as possible. The bison is a remarkably tough and resilient animal, and will probably do okay with the hand it was dealt…FWIW.
Let me re-phrase my original question: What advantage is there in a primitive “eye” that does NOT yet see? I can understand how an organ that detects shadows is helpful, but even that is a pretty sophisticated device. (ask any engineer) what about those very early beginnings of the eye BEFORE it has any practical utility?
I’ve read some of the Internet material that I was pointed to. This stuff makes Dr. Seuss’s work seem historical. Here’s a great sample …we now must believe that this organ developed independently 40 times over…what a coincidence! Keep in mind that there is no driving intelligent force or plan. Here’s the quote:
In the light of Nilsson and Pelger’s results, it is no wonder “the” eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom. There has been enough time for it to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage. Assuming typical generation lengths for small animals, the time needed for the evolution of the eye, far from stretching credulity with its vastness, turns out to be too short for geologists to measure! It is a geological blink.