A dream came true: Half grown Siberian tiger in the snow

CelticOdyssey wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

<big snip>

But I do not like unsubstantiated claims made by so called scientists that are simply very bad i proving their point but very good at assuming. They remind me an awful lot of climate change deniers which also lack facts ut claim and claim and claim...

Just take a few copies of scientific papers on neobiota and look at the incredible load of biased wording and you see it is an ideology, surely when the facts are missing badly.

So a sixth extinction wave....I would love to see scientific work that is as strong and sound as I can find on anthropogenic climate change.

I appreciate the time you have spent on your remarks. However, the evidence for mass extinction is not theoretical- it's entirely empirical and is easy to find.

It is not easy to find. First of all: what is a "mass extinction". The wording itself is subjective. What is a "mass"? So purely scientific we cannot use the word "mass" in a way it relates to some volume. It is significant or not.

Second point: there is also a significant increase in new species. Due to hybridisation where neobiota that have both been dispersed in a new area encouter eachother for the firsttime and produce fertile offspring with various traits aswell as rapid local evolution as a response to neobiota. And example are the Cain Toad that has led to rapid evolution in predatory (snake). The snakes that were capable of eating large toads died, the snakes which could only prey on smaller toads (and survived with less poison) remained. So the species in places where toads are abundant are different.

There is also a plantspecies known from the Pyrenees (I think) that is now abundant in California. In just century it is so different these are no longer capable to interbreed. It is a whole new species.

Now the question is if this counterbalances the extinctions elsewhere. For that we need facts: how many new species are found and how many others are no longer found. This is a bit tricky: not finding some does not mean they are extinct, finding a new one assures you we have a new one...Otoh: not finding new ones does not mean they are not there etc.

Whether you agree with specific quoted species counts, it's clear that median numbers of most large mammals over the last few generations are in steep decline. The exceptions are few, and are mostly those species that we have recently taken great efforts to protect.

But how many of all species are mammals? What percentage. Let alone large ones? And how will their demise change their habitat, the contintent..the world?

Extinctions even mass ones are not bad. No one can prove that either. You may fid it bad and I might very much agree actually. But scientifically speaking I would like to know what will change after the Siberian tigers are gone. Will their place not be taken by Usuri Brown bear? Will other species like wolves not flourish (not much wolves where tigers are around). May be the final impact is little.
I find Siberian tigers awesome. But if we are to implement human values on animals, we will end up getting very personal preferences per animal likely...

There are so few Siberian tigers left and tigers have gone extinct in many places, like the Kaspian Tiger which is very close to the Siberian one.

Finally, one person has remarked that this particular discussion may not be appropriate on a photography forum, and I tend to agree, so this is my last post on the subject.

I think arguments evolve, so it can be interesting to discuss this. If people are interested they can argue and if not they don't.